v^" 


74-7 


UC-NRLF 


U 


XTbe  'dniversiti?  of  GbicaQO 

I'OUNDED   BY   JOHN    D.    ROCKF.rEI.LEK 


THE  SO-CALLED  RULE  OE  THREE 

ACTORS  IN  THE  CLASSICAL 

GREEK  DRAMA 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF  ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE    IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  greek) 


BY 

KELLEY   REES 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1908 


Ubc  "Clniversit^  of  Cbicago 

KOUNDKU    BY    JOHN    D.    KOCKEl- ELLEK 


THE  SO-CALLED  RULE  OF  THREE 

ACTORS  IN  THE  CLASSICAL 

GREEK  DRAMA 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF  ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE    IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OK    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  greek) 


BY 

KELLEY    REES 


Or   THE 


uUNIVERSlTY^^ 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1908 


('OPYRIGHT  1907  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  February  1908 


Vy 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A. 


PREFACE 

I  take  this  occasion  to  acknowledge  my  debt  to  Professor  Edward  Capps, 
late  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  now  of  Princeton  University,  for  invalu- 
able assistance  in  the  composition  of  this  treatise.  It  was  at  his  suggestion 
that  I  undertook  the  investigation,  and  he  has  been  my  constant  advisor 
and  critic  throughout.  It  also  gives  me  much  pleasure  in  this  connection 
to  express  my  gratitude  to  other  former  instructors,  Professors  Shorey,  Hale, 
and  Hendrickson  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Professor  Walter  Miller  of 
Tulane  University,  and  especially  Professors  Murray  and  Fairclough  of 
Stanford  University,  who  encouraged  me  to  pursue  further  classical  studies. 
In  Germany  it  was  my  privilege  to  study  under  Professors  Blass,  Ditten- 
berger,  Wissowa,  and  Robert.  Professor  Robert  especially,  with  whom 
was  the  greater  part  of  my  work,  I  have  to  thank  not  only  for  his  stimu- 
lating lectures,  but  for  the  personal  interest  he  manifested  in  my  welfare 
as  well. 

K.  R. 

Adelphi  College, 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


l?*^ 


n -fl   '- 


PATRI    CARISSIMO 
JOHN    H.    REES 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Introduction g 

The  Meaning  of  the  "Three-Actor  Law,"  as  Formulated  by  Modern 

Scholars g 

History  of  Its  Growth  and  Development  up  to  the  Present  Time  .       .  1 1 

The  Same  Evidence  for  Comedy  as  for  Tragedy 16 

The  Possibility  of  a  Misunderstanding  as  to  the  Real  Significance 

of  the  "Law" 17 

II.  The  Evidence  for  the  So-Called  Law  of  Three  Actors     .       .        18 

1.  Ne/xijo-eis  viroKpirQv      ...........  18 

2.  Aristotle  and  Horace  the  Basis  for  the  Aesthetic  Law     .        .        .  21 

3.  Would   the   "Law"    Have  Been  a  Natural   Outgrowth   of  the 
Economic  Conditions  under  Which  the  Drama  Developed  ?  .        .  26 

4.  Evidence  Based  on  the  Terms  Protagonist,  Deuteragonist,  and 
Tritagonist 31 

III.  A  Distinction  between  the  Aesthetic  Canon  of  Aristotle 
AND  Economic  Conditions  Which  Determine  the  Number  of 
Persons  Employed  as  Actors  in  a  Play 40 

IV.  Objections  to  the  Law  as  Usually  Applied  .....        42 

A.  Sometimes  More  Than  Three  Actors  Are  Required       ...  42 

B.  Four  Actors  Are  Necessary;   Otherwise  Split  Roles        ...  45 

C.  Parts  Are  Overloaded 48 

D.  Awkward   Situations   Caused  by   a   "Lightning"    Change   of 
Dress 50 

E.  Bad  Assignment  of  Roles 53 

1.  Important  Male  and  Female  Roles  Must  Be  Doubled      .        .         55 

2.  Parts  of  Messengers,  Guards,  and  Servants  Are  Combined 
with  Those  of  Princesses  and  Other  Female  Roles  of  Delicate 

and  Refined  Type 57 

3.  Youth  and  Old  Age  Are  Disregarded  in  the  Assignment  of 
Parts.  The  Roles  Are  Also  Very  Often  of  a  Different  Sex, 
Which  Renders  Such  Combinations  Even  More  Inappropriate  .         57 

4.  Other  Unsuitable  and  Miscellaneous  Roles  Must  Be  Doubled    .         58 

F.  It  Assumes  That  the  State  Set  a  Limit  to  Its  Own  Expenditures 

or  to  the  Demands  Which  Could  Be  Made  upon  the  Choregus      .         60 

7 


0  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

PAGE 

V.  The  Existence  of  a  Practical  Three-Actor  Rule  in  the 

Period  of  the  Guilds 64 

The  Economic  Conditions  at  Athens  Contrasted  with  the  Conditions 
under  Which  the  TraveHng  Companies  Produced  Plays      ...         64 
The  Effect  of  Economic  Conditions  upon  Dramatic  Production   .       .         66 
The  Evidence  for  the  Practice  of  Using  Three  Actors  in  the  Post- 
Classical  Period 69 

An  Illustration  Drawn  from  Dramatic  Performances  in  the  Eliza- 
bethan Period 71 

VI.  A  Redistribution  of  the  Roles  in  Selected  Plays         .       .        75 


I.     INTRODUCTION 

One  of  the  most  striking  peculiarities  commonly  attributed  to  the 
Greek  drama  in  the  matter  of  presentation  is  the  alleged  employment  of 
only  three  speaking  actors.  The  custom  began,  we  are  told,  with  the  intro- 
duction of  a  third  actor  by  Sophocles.  Before  that  event  tragic  poets  were 
limited  to  an  even  smaller  number.  Aeschylus  was  allowed  two  performers 
for  the  Suppliants,  Persians,  and  Septem,  while  Thespis,  the  traditional 
inventor  of  tragedy,  never  employed  more  than  one.  The  same  limitation 
applied  to  comedy  also,  but  through  a  different  process  of  development: 
whereas  in  tragedy  there  was  a  gradual  increase  from  one  actor  to  three, 
in  comedy  there  was  apparently  a  reduction  from  a  larger  number  to  three. ^ 
This  innovation  of  Cratinus  happened  not  long  after  the  introduction  of 

I  Tzetzes  De  com.  (Kaibel,  pp.  1 7  ff.),  whose  statement  seems  to  imply  that  Crati- 
nus restricted  the  number  of  actors  in  comedy  to  three ;  before  his  time  aral^la.  Aris- 
totle acknowledges  his  inability  to  trace  certain  stages  in  the  early  development  of 
comedy,  yet  his  words,  Poetics  1449  b  5,  imply,  according  to  most  interpreters,  that 
the  philosopher  conceived  of  comedy  as  having  passed  through  the  same  process  as 
tragedy,  with  one,  then  two  and  three  actors;  see  Susemihl  Rev.  de  phil.  XIX  (1895), 
pp.  199  ff.;  Kaibel  Hermes  XXIV  (1889),  p.  64;  Poppelreuter  De  com.  Att.  primordiis, 
p.  28  (Berlin,  1893);  Beer  Zahl  d.  Schauspieler,  pp.  17  ff.  These  scholars,  however, 
have  found  difi&culty  with  the  statement  of  Tzetzes  about  Cratinus:  Kar^ffTrjae  /xiv 
trpSiTov  TO.  iv  TTi  K(i}fjL(p8iq.  irpdcrwira  /J.^XP'-  Tp<-i^v,  ffTiJcras  ara^iav,  kt\.  Beer  (p.  17) 
thought  that  the  number  of  regular  actors  was  never  reduced,  but  that  Cratinus  did 
away  with  "parachoregemata,"  leaving  only  three  actors.  The  fact  that  Aristophanes 
later  frequently  employed  four  or  five  actors  is  against  this.  Susemihl  (p.  202)  regards 
the  theory  about  Cratinus  as  a  mere  mistake,  due  to  this  process  of  reasoning:  The 
oldest  comedy  that  survived  was  the  work  of  Cratinus;  it  used  three  actors,  as  do 
most  of  his  other  plays.  Hence  Cratinus  was  the  author  of  the  innovation.  Cf.  also 
Poppelreuter,  pp.  28  ff.  But  the  essential  difference  in  the  structure  of  comedy  and 
tragedy  is  evidence  for  a  different  process  of  development  for  each.  See  Zielinski 
Gliederung  d.  altatt.  Kom.  (Leipzig,  1885).  The  passage  in  Tzetzes  is  also  against 
the  theory  of  a  like  process  for  both,  and  can  best  be  explained  on  the  assumption 
that  the  number  of  performers  underwent  a  gradual  decrease  from  a  larger  to  a  smaller 
number.  Under  no  other  supposition  can  its  development  from  the  kuims  be  under- 
stood in  the  opinion  of  Capps  Introd.  of  Com.  into  City  Dion.,  p.  11,  n.  36.  After  the 
state's  recognition  of  comedy,  487/6  B.  c,  there  was  a  constant  effort  on  the  part  of 
comic  poets  to  make  comedy  conform  to  the  artistic  norms  of  tragedy.  Cratinus  took 
one  decided  step  in  this  direction  by  reducing  the  number  of  performers  that  could 
he  on  the  scene  at  the  same  time. 


lO  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

the  third  actor  by  Sophocles.  From  this  time  on  throughout  the  entire 
classical  period  three  actors  remained  the  regular  number  assigned  by  the 
state  for  the  presentation  of  all  plays,  both  tragic  and  comic.  These  three 
actors,  protagonist,  deuteragonist,  and  tritagonist,  were  able  by  the  doubling 
of  parts  to  impersonate  all  the  characters  of  the  play. 

Such  is  the  three-actor  law  as  it  is  commonly  understood  at  the  present 
time.  No  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  questioned  its  validity,  though  the 
difficulties  encountered  in  its  application  to  single  plays  are  not  lacking,  as 
the  conflicting  views  on  matters  of  detailed  interpretation  will  show. 

The  law  as  described  above  is  stated  by  Miiller  Biihnenalt.  (1886), 
p.  173;  Haigh  Attic  Theatre  (1898),  pp.  252,  253.  The  latter  says: 
"This  number  [3]  was  never  exceeded,  either  in  comedy  or  tragedy.  All 
extant  Greek  plays  could  be  performed  by  three  actors."  Navarre  Diony- 
sos,  pp.  216  ff.,  says  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  four  earliest  plays  of 
Aeschylus,  "toutes  les  tragedies  subsistantes  reclament  trois  acteurs. 
Jamais  ce  nombre  ne  fut  depasse."  That  the  same  law  applied  to  comedy 
after  it  became  a  state  institution  is  the  accepted  opinion — Bergk  Gesch.  d. 
griech.  Litt.  Ill  (1884),  p.  83:  "Mit  dieser  geringen  Zahl  [3]  der  Schau- 
spieler  hat  sich  im  Allgemeinen  das  griechische  Drama  begniigt;"  p.  84: 
"Fur  die  Komodien  gelten  die  gleichen  Ordnungen;"  Croiset  Hist,  de 
la  litt.  gr.  III^  (1899),  p.  83:  "Ce  nombre  de  trois  acteurs  est  reste  le 
normal  pour  toute  la  periode  classique,  a  partir  des  debuts  de  Sophocle  en 
468,"  adding  (p.  492)  that  comedy  became  subject  to  the  same  limitation; 
K.  O.  Miiller  Gesch.  griech.  Litt.  I^  (1882),  p.  510:  "Sophokles  und  Euri- 
pides haben  sich  immer  mit  diesen  drei  Schauspielern  begniigt,"  excepting 
however,  Oedipus  Coloneus,  for  which  he  holds  a  fourth  actor  necessary. 
In  comedy  he  finds  (11^,  p.  13)  that  the  rule  of  three  was  not  strictly  observed. 
The  editors  adhere  to  the  interpretation  of  the  law  as  above  formulated. 
Jebb  never  admits  a  fourth  actor.  Wecklein  divides  the  parts  in  the 
Prometheus  between  two  actors  (Einl.,  p.  55),  but  after  Sophocles  a  third 
performer  was  allowed  (Medea,  Einl.,  p.  31).  Hayley  (Alcestis,  p.  50) 
calls  attention  to  the  impropriety  of  the  same  actor  playing  parts  so  widely 
different  as  Heracles  and  Alcestis,  but  does  not  question  the  rule ;  Teuffel- 
Kahler  (Clouds,  p.  51)  divide  the  roles  of  this  play  among  three  actors. 
Blaydes  accepts  the  rule  for  Aristophanes;  but  for  the  Wasps  he  says 
(p.  7):  "In  hac  fabula  quattuor  interdum  personae  simul  inducuntur." 
Van  Leeuwen  has  made  a  division  of  the  parts  in  the  plays  of  Aristophanes, 
using  three  actors  as  far  as  possible,  but  admitting  a  fourth  when  occasion 
demands:  in  the  Clouds  a  fourth  actor  must  play  either  the  Just  or  the 
Unjust  Orator;  with  three  actors  this  play  could  not  have  been  performed. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  II 

However,  he  does  not  attack  the  rule  in  its  application  to  comedy  in  general.' 
Wilamowitz  Heracles  I',  pp.  380  ff.,  distributes  the  parts  in  the  Oresteia 
to  illustrate  how  the  poet  strove  to  equahze  the  burden  upon  the  actors. 
He  acknowledges,  however,  that  this  principle  is  seldom,  if  ever,  observed.^ 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  more  names  to  this  list.  Scholars  of  the 
present  time  are  agreed  that  the  Athenian  state  during  the  classical  period 
allowed  to  poets  for  the  presentation  of  plays  only  three  actors,  among 
whom  all  the  parts  of  the  plays  were  distributed.  This  peculiar  feature  of 
the  Greek  stage  was  recognized,  apparently,  as  far  back  as  the  records  of 
modern  scholarship  extend.  Tyrwhitt  on  Aristotle's  Poetics,  sec.  x,  p.  118 
(1794),  called  attention  to  the  "rule,"  and  was  the  first  scholar,  to  my 
knowledge,  to  bring  together  the  material.  He  made  no  attempt  to  apply 
the  law  to  the  extant  plays.  Starting  with  statements  of  late  Greek  writers, 
such  as  Pollux,  Lucian,  and  the  scholiasts  (infra,  p.  70),  which  I  hope  to 
show  had  reference  to  the  economic  conditions  of  the  post-classical  period, 
he  uses  them  to  illustrate  Aristotle's  summary  of  the  early  history  of  Attic 
tragedy,  in  which  the  philosopher  certainly  had  in  mind,  not  the  practical 
conditions  which  the  stage-manager  had  to  meet,  but  merely  the  aesthetic 
conditions  of  tragedy  as  an  art-form — Attic  tragedy  as  viewed  by  the  spec- 
tator, not  by  one  who  stood  behind  the  scenes.  Tyrwhitt  simply  followed 
the  practice  of  all  scholars  of  his  time  in  the  matter  of  antiquities,  using  as 
evidence  for  the  classical  period  any  statement,  that  was  found  in  a  writer 
of  Greek,  even  if  seven  or  ten  centuries  later.  It  was  not  until  the  nine- 
teenth century  that  the  more  discriminating  historical  method  of  using 
evidence  was  consistently  applied  to  Greek  antiquities,  and  the  task  of 
freeing  ourselves  from  the  shackles  of  a  tradition  based  on  such  uncritical 
methods  has  even  now  not  been  fully  completed. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  trace  the  rule  of  three  actors  from  Tyrwhitt  to 
the  present  time.  Bottiger  De  actoribus  prim.  sec.  et  tert.  partium  in  jab. 
Graec.  (Weimar,  1797)  discusses  the  titles  of  the  three  actors  and  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  same  with  reference  to  the  parts  played  by  each.  The 
leading  actor,  protagonist,  played  "partes  primas,"  and  the  second  actor 
or  deuteragonist,  next  to  the  protagonist  in  importance,  played  "partes 

»  Van  Leeuwen's  note  Nub.  Praef.,  p.  2,  n.  i,  reads  almost  like  a  protest  against 
the  law. 

2  In  Hermes  XXXII  (1897),  P-  3^^,  note,  he  sets  up  the  theory  that  specially 
qualified  singers,  who  were  not  actors,  were  employed  for  certain  song-parts  (e.  g.,  the 
two  sisters  in  the  Septem,  the  children  in  the  Alcestis,  Andromache,  and  Suppliants 
[Eur.],  and  the  Phrygian  in  the  Orestes).  In  this  way  he  relieves  certain  parts  that  are 
unequally  and  incongruously  combined  in  the  ordinary  distribution. — There  is  much 
force  in  his  arguments,  but  they  run  counter  to  the  three-actor  "  law." 


12  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

secundas,"  while  the  poorest  actor  of  the  three,  the  tritagonist,  played 
"partes  tertias."  The  distinction  between  the  class  of  the  actors  and  the 
roles  they  played  was  rigorously  observed.  The  protagonist  was  never 
allowed  to  play  "partes  tertias,"  nor  the  tritagonist  "partes  primas." 
Bottiger  does  not  distribute  the  parts  in  any  of  the  plays.  His  use  of  the 
terms  "primae,  secundae,  et  tertiae  partes"  as  applied  to  Greek  plays 
adds  an  element  of  confusion.  Properly  speaking  there  is  but  one  first, 
second,  or  third  part  in  a  play.  We  cannot  find  in  the  plays  a  group  of 
fv  /i  riki»^"v  characters  which  might  be  called  first,  second,  and  third  respectively,  apart 
from  the  actors  that  must  play  them  as  the  arrangement  of  the  play 
demands.  When  two  characters  have  an  equal  influence  upon  the  leading 
persons,  or  play  equally  important  parts  in  the  drama,  these  characters 
rarely  fall  to  the  same  actor  (infra,  p.  36).  But  the  "rule  of  three  actors" 
was  well  established  by  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  as  Bot- 
tiger's  article  shows.  It  was  a  dogma  built,  as  it  was  believed,  upon 
Aristotle  and  supported  apparently  by  late  writers  without  reference  to  the 
plays  themselves  or  the  conditions  under  which  plays  were  produced  in 
[  the  fifth  century.  Confirmation  was  found  in  the  non-existence  of  a  special 
[  name  for  the  "actor  of  fourth  parts."  Scholars  next  turned  to  the  plays. 
They  began  to  detect  the  influence  of  this  restriction  upon  the  inner  economy 
of  the  drama.  Characters  come  and  go,  not  because  the  poet  chooses  to 
have  them  do  so,  but  because  the  limitation  in  the  number  of  available 
actors  requires  it.  The  motive  for  the  exit  of  a  person  is  that  the  actor  is 
needed  for  another  person  who  is  soon  to  appear.  Ehnsley  finds  the  real 
reason  for  the  departure  of  Aethra  in  Eur.  Heracleid.  539  to  be  that  the 
actor  who  had  hitherto  played  the  part  of  Aethra  is  now  wanted  for  the  part 
of  the  Herald.  In  the  earliest  plays  of  Euripides^  Elmsley  discovers  that 
the  contrivances  which  are  "adopted  in  other  plays  to  render  a  fourth 
actor  unnecessary  are  appHed  to  the  exclusion  of  a  third.  At  the  end  of 
the  Alcestis,  Alcestis  observes  a  strange  and  obstinate  silence.  The  poet 
attempts  to  assign  a  reason  for  her  silence  (11 47),  but  the  true  reason  was 
"that  the  actor  who  wore  the  robe  and  mask  of  Alcestis  at  the  beginning  of 
the  play  is  now  present  in  the  character  of  Heracles." 

How  is  the  rule  to  be  applied  ?  How  are  the  parts  in  the  extant  plays 
to  be  distributed  among  three  actors,  and  what  parts  in  the  single  plays 

'  Alcestis  and  Medea,  though  the  "third  actor"  had  been  introduced  ca.  30  years 
before.  The  introduction  of  a  child  in  these  two  plays  is  thought  by  Elmsley  to  have 
excluded  the  employment  of  a  third  actor  for  adult  characters.  However,  in  the 
Andromache  children  did  not  seem  to  come  within  the  rigor  of  the  law.  Here  Molossus 
is  upon  the  scene  with  three  other  persons;  see  Class.  Jour.  VIII  (1813),  pp.  435  ff. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  1 3 

did  the  protagonist,  deuteragonist,  and  tritagonist  take  ?  These  are  ques- 
tions that  have  eHcited  much  discussion.  Scholars  have  attempted  to  find 
the  answer  by  different  methods.  The  first  one  to  undertake  this  task  in 
a  comprehensive  way,  distributing  the  roles  in  all  the  tragedies,  was  Lach- 
mann  De  mensura  tragoediarum  (Berlin,  1822).  His  method  was  unique. 
The  division  of  single  parts  by  the  number  seven  is  the  deciding  element 
for  the  grouping  of  single  parts  for  particular  actors — all  dialogue  parts 
when  added  together  make  a  number  of  pT/crets  that  is  divisible  by  seven. 
In  the  three-actor  period  that  part  (or  those  parts)  which  make  up  the 
"numerus  Justus"  shows  us  the  protagonist.  The  parts  of  the  deuter- 
agonist and  tritagonist  taken  together  contain  a  number  of  verses  or  p>?o-£ts 
divisible  by  seven;  but  there  is  no  sure  method  of  determining  which  parts 
are  second  and  which  are  third.  Lachmann's  book,  with  its  artificial  and 
unreasonable  mechanical  method,  did  not  evoke  favorable  criticism.^  He 
was  forced  to  assume  corruption  of  texts,  which  he  freely  emended,  to 
make  absurd  distributions  of  the  roles,  and  often  to  resort  to  the  employ- 
ment of  an  additional  performer.^ 

The  epoch-making  work3  on  the  distribution  of  parts  is  C.  F.  Hermann's 
De  distr.  pers.  in  trag.  Graec.  (Marburg,  1840).  Hermann's  results  are 
generally  accepted  in  modern  handbooks  and  editions.  Accepting  as  an 
established  fact  that  the  state  provided  only  three  actors,  which  accordingly 
limited  to  three  the  number  of  speaking  characters  in  any  scene,  Hermann 
looked  thus  at  the  practical  problem  which  confronted  the  poet  in  composing 
his  drama:  If  he  employ  a  large  number  of  characters,  he  must  see  to 
it  that  not  more  than  three  shall  appear  at  the  same  time,  and  must  pro- 
vide a  plausible  pretext  for  the  departure  of  a  character  from  the  scene 
when  the  actor  who  carries  this  role  is  required  to  impersonate  another 
character  in  the  following  scene.  Hermann  has  endeavored  to  show  by  an 
examination  of  the  plays  that  the  poets  solved  this  problem  in  a  most 
clever  and  artistic  manner.  The  motive  for  the  departure  of  a  character 
is  worked  in  with  such  a  degree  of  naturalness  and  plausibihty  "ut  re  ipsa 
potius  quam  externa  necessitate  omnia  moveri  videantur,"  but  in  reality 
the  character  leaves  the  scene  at  a  particular  time  that  the  actor  may  come 

'  Cf.  the  theory  recently  propounded  by  Oeri  Die  grosse  Responsion  in  d.  spat. 
Soph.  Trag.  im  Kykl.  u.  in  d.  Herakleiden  (Berlin,  1880),  whose  arguments  have  been 
thoroughly  refuted  by  Zielinski  Gliederung,  p.  387. 

2  E.  g.,  in  all  the  plays  of  Euripides  except  Alcestis,  Heracleidae,  Ion,  and  Heracles. 

3  The  law  is  also  stated  by  Schneider  ^4//.  Theaterwesen,  pp.  13  ff.,  131  ff.  (Weimar, 
1835),  who  divides  the  roles  in  a  few  plays  of  Aeschylus,  and  collects  in  his  "Quellen" 
the  notices  which  prove  the  "law."  O.  Miiller  Eumenides,  p.  no,  divided  the  roles 
in  the  Oresteia  in  the  usual  way. 


14  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

on  in  the  next  scene  as  another  person.  This  restriction  in  the  number  of 
actors  did  not  render  the  presentation  of  a  drama  less  effective.  The 
emotions  of  the  spectator  would  be  deeply  aroused  by  the  very  fact  that 
the  same  actor  who  had  before  worn  the  mask  of  Antigone  was  now  present 
as  Teiresias,  "qui  quum  Creonti  poenam  pro  illius  supplicio  patiendam 
vaticinetur  et  ipse  tanquam  ultor  atque  alastor  ejus  prodire  videtur." 
The  effect  would  be  heightened  still  more  when  the  spectator  saw  the 
same  actor,  who  earlier  in  the  play  had  been  led  forth  to  the  tomb  in  the 
character  of  Antigone,  return  in  the  character  of  a  Messenger  to  relate  her 
death.  Though  the  mask  and  dress  were  changed,  the  same  voice  and 
stature  were  perceptible  in  both,  so  that  the  spectator  would  feel  that  the 
ghost  of  Antigone  was  speaking  through  the  mask  of  the  Messenger.  In 
view  of  the  dramatic  effect  thus  attained,  Hermann  consistently  has  the 
same  actor  play  the  part  of  Messenger  that  had  before  played  the  part  of 
the  person  whose  death  he  announces. 

Few  would  now  concede  that  the  Greeks  employed  such  a  principle  for 
dramatic  effect — the  production  of  tragic  irony  by  a  means  which  would 
destroy  the  dramatic  illusion.  If  the  economy  of  the  play  in  the  conven- 
tional distribution  of  the  roles  forced  the  same  actor  to  impersonate  Anti- 
gone, Teiresias,  and  Messenger,  the  actor  certainly  strove  to  adapt  his 
voice  and  manner  to  the  person  whose  mask  he  was,  for  the  time  being, 
wearing.  Any  other  assumption  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  the  Greek  play- 
wright did  not  seek  to  create  a  perfect  illusion,  but  rather  to  impress  upon 
the  spectator  the  clumsiness  of  the  histrionic  art  by  which  two  incongruous 
roles  were  carried  by  the  same  actor.  In  the  distribution  of  the  roles 
Hermann  assigns  to  the  protagonist  the  most  difficult  part,  to  the  deuter- 
agonist  and  tritagonist  parts  of  less  importance.  Female  roles  in  his 
scheme  usually  fall  to  the  deuteragonist ;  the  tritagonist  plays  roles  of  a 
miscellaneous  nature,  including  kings  and  tyrants.  In  the  grouping  of 
several  roles  for  the  same  actor  Hermann  thus  formulates  the  principles 
which  the  ancient  poet,  in  his  opinion,  observed:  (i)  The  actor  should  be 
adapted  to  the  part  or  parts  to  which  he  is  assigned;  (2)  parts  should  be 
combined  on  the  basis  of  age,  i.  e.,  characters  of  like  age  should  fall  to  the 
same  actor;  (3)  female  roles  should  be  grouped.  The  application  of  these 
principles  would  be  desirable,  but  the  economy  of  the  play,  concludes 
Hermann,  usually  determines  which  roles  are  to  be  doubled  and  thus  only 
in  rare  instances  may  any  choice  be  exercised  and  the  suitability  of  the 
actor  to  the  part  receive  due  consideration.  Throughout  Hermann's  dis- 
cussion there  seems  to  run  an  element  of  inconsistency.  For  example,  he 
finds  no  objection,  apparently,  to  the  doubling  of  the  parts  of  Antigone 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  1 5 

and  Teiresias,  Iphigeneia  and  Old  Man  in  Iphigeneia  at  Aulis,  Chryso- 
themis  and  Pedagogue  in  Soph.  Electra;  and  yet  in  the  Phoenissae  the 
principle  of  doubling  roles  of  hke  age  is  given  as  the  reason  for  combining 
the  part  of  Eteocles,  rather  than  that  of  his  somewhat  younger  brother, 
Polyneices,  with  that  of  the  aged  Pedagogue.  When  the  arrangement  of 
the  scenes  forces  the  doubling  of  inharmonious  parts,  Hermann  seeks  to 
point  out  the  heightened  effect  gained  by  such  a  combination,  but  when 
the  economy  of  the  play  allows  some  choice  in  the  matter,  the  principle  of 
the  fitness  of  the  actor  for  the  part  is  applied  with  the  precision  of  a  modern 
stage-manager. 

There  are  no  principles  which  may  be  consistently  appHed  in  the 
doubling  of  parts  under  the  three-actor  law.  This  consideration  led 
Richter  Vertheilung  der  RoUen  (Berlin,  1842)  to  attack  Hermann's  funda- 
mental thesis,  viz.,  that  the  poets  composed  plays  according  to  a  three- 
actor  scheme.  The  poets,  he  says  (p.  3),  wrote  their  plays  according  to 
certain  principles  of  dramatic  art,  giving  little  heed  to  a  three-actor  rule. 
They  did  not  set  up  a  schematic  outline  of  three  actors  to  which  the  arrange- 
ment and  order  of  the  entire  play  was  made  to  conform,  but  concerned 
themselves  with  the  division  of  roles  only  after  the  play  was  completed  and 
the  time  of  presentation  had  come.  The  use,  he  urges,  of  " parachorege- 
mata,"'  extra-performers  furnished  by  the  choregus,  proves  that  the  poets 
did  not  regard  the  three-actor  rule  as  binding.  The  mixture  of  roles 
which  the  different  actors  had  to  play  also  indicates  that  the  three-actor 
scheme  was  not  an  important  factor  in  the  composition  of  a  play.  The 
protagonist  plays  the  hardest  role  and  other  miscellaneous  characters ;  the 
deuteragonist  plays  no  special  kind  of  roles,  since  the  distribution  of  parts 
is  "etwas  ZufaUiges,"  not  premeditated.  Of  course  the  second  actor 
would  take  the  part  that  stands  in  closest  relation  to  the  central  figure, 
that  exerts  the  greatest  influence  on  his  life  and  destiny,  and  may  be  friendly 
or  hostile.  In  like  manner  the  tritagonist  gets  his  roles,  not  by  the  plan  of 
the  poet,  but  in  a  haphazard  way  as  the  arrangement  requires.  The  parts 
that  fall  to  him  are  usually  of  a  miscellaneous  character.     The  poet  divided 

'  See  my  article  "On  the  Meaning  of  Trapaxop^jTij/m "  in  Class.  Phil.  II  (1907), 
pp.  387  ff.  In  this  article  I  endeavored  to  show  that  irapaxopvyv/^"'  had  no  application 
to  dramatic  production  at  Athens  in  the  fifth  century,  that  the  word  does  not  occur 
in  the  classical  period  at  all,  but  is  of  late  origin,  being  formed  from  the  verb 
Tapaxopy)yeiv  in  its  late  derived  meaning  of  "to  furnish  in  addition,  or  extra,"  and 
thus  had  no  connection  wdth  the  choregus  or  the  choregic  system.  ira.paxop'fiyrtiJ.a. 
meant  simply  "an  extra  provision,"  "an  additional  expense,"  and  was  applied  in 
the  technitae-period  to  all  "extras"  furnished  over  and  above  the  regular  traveling 
company. 


1 6  RULE    OF   THREE   ACTORS 

the  parts  among  three  actors,  not  from  choice,  but  because  the  state  did 
not  put  a  fourth  at  his  disposal.  Sometimes  the  economy  of  a  play  causes 
a  happy  doubling  of  parts,  but  more  often  the  combination  is  bad.  How- 
ever, a  fourth  was  never  introduced;  otherwise  we  should  have  had  some 
record  of  it.  The  appropriate  name  for  a  fourth  actor  does  not  occur. 
Richter's  results,  however,  when  he  actually  distributes  the  parts  in  the 
plays,  are  essentially  the  same  as  Hermann's. 

The  history  of  the  discussion  as  to  the  applicabiUty  of  the  rule  to  comedy 
need  not  detain  us  long.  It  was  for  a  long  time  the  prevailing  opinion 
that  the  rule  did  not  apply  to  comedy.  For  this  view  we  may  compare 
Enger  De  histr.  in  Arist.  Thesm.  numero,  p.  7  (Oppeln,  1840):  "etiam 
quartarum  partium  actorem  ab  Aristophane  adhibitum  esse  constat;" 
K.  O.  Miiller  Gesch.  griech.  Litt.  II^,  p.  13:  "Doch  scheint  Aristophanes 
in  anderen  Stucken  (i.  e.,  than  Acharnians)  auch  einen  vierten  Schauspieler 
zugezogen  zu  haben:  Die  Wespen  liessen  sich  doch  schwerlich  anders  als 
von  vier  Schauspielern  auffiihren;"  C.  F.  Hermann  in  Berl.  Jahrb.  1843, 
p.  391,  expressly  states  that  comedy  was  not  under  the  three-actor  law. 
But  since  the  appearance  of  Beer's  book  Ueber.  d.  Zahl  d.  Schausp.  bei 
Arist.  (Lpz.,  1844),  opinion  has  undergone  a  complete  change.  It  is  now 
generally  believed  that  comedy  was  subject  to  the  same  rule.  This  con- 
clusion is  based  on  the  following  arguments:  (i)  There  is  no  direct  evidence 
from  antiquity  for  the  employment  of  a  fourth  actor  for  comedy  in  contrast 
to  the  three  for  tragedy;  (2)  No  distinction  is  made  between  tragedy  and 
comedy  in  this  regard  by  ancient  writers  (cf.  Euanthus  De  com.  et  trag., 
Diomedes  in  Keil  Gram.  Laf.  II,  pp.  490) ;  (3)  In  the  Soteric  inscriptions 
of  Delphi  the  comic  troupes  consist,  without  exception,  of  three  actors 
(Miiller  Buhnenalt.,  p.  174);  (4)  The  comedies  of  Aristophanes  may  be 
presented  with  three  actors  with  the  help  of  a  goodly  number  of  super- 
numeraries. 

Since  Hermann,  Richter,  and  Beer  there  has  been  no  independent 
work  on  this  subject.  These  scholars  have  largely  molded  modern  opinion. 
We  may  say  that  the  one  point  about  which  there  is  absolutely  no  difference 
of  opinion  is  that  there  was  a  three-actor  law.  The  law  is  universally 
interpreted  to  mean  that  three  speaking  actors,  by  doubling  the  roles, 
presented  a  play.     It  was  appUcable  to  both  comedy  and  tragedy. 

It  is  important  to  keep  this  last  statement  in  mind.  The  external 
evidence  for  a  three-actor  rule  is  the  same  for  comedy  as  for  tragedy;  in 
other  words,  if  there  was  a  rule  for  tragedy  there  must  have  been  one  for 
comedy.  This  is  negative  argument.  It  assumes  a  priori  that  a  rule  for 
tragedy  existed.     May  the  question  not  be  discussed  from  another  point  of 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  1 7 

view  ?  If  the  rule  does  not  hold  when  applied  to  comedy,  might  we  not 
infer  that  there  was  no  such  rule  at  all  ?  The  application  of  the  rule  is 
not  easy  in  either  case ;  we  gain  an  impression  from  a  review  of  the  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  that  the  rule  as  usually  applied  is  not  altogether  satis- 
factory. Hermann  recognizes  the  principle  that  the  doubling  of  male 
and  female  characters  is  to  be  avoided,  that  it  is  desirable  to  group  together 
for  the  same  actor  characters  of  a  like  age ;  but  in  the  distribution  of  roles 
under  the  three-actor  system  he  has  not  been  able  to  avoid  such  objection- 
able combinations.  K.  O.  Muller  finds  in  Oedipus  Coloneus  that  the  part 
of  Theseus  must  be  divided  among  three  different  actors  under  this  restric- 
tion. Richter  points  out  cases  where  widely  different  characters  fall  to 
one  actor.  Van  Leeuwen  discovers  many  cases  where  a  fourth  actor  is  neces- 
sary. May  there  not  be  some  misunderstanding  as  to  the  real  meaning  of 
the  passages  from  which  the  "law"  has  been  derived  ? 

The  outcome  of  this  study  tends,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  to  show  that 
the  three-actor  law,  if  it  ever  existed,  had  no  application  to  the  classical 
drama.  The  objections  to  be  urged  against  the  current  interpretation  of 
the  so-called  law  are:  (i)  Sometimes  more  than  three  actors  are  required, 
i.  e.,  more  than  three  persons  are  on  the  scene  at  once.  (2)  The  appHca- 
tion  of  the  law  results  in  split  roles,  i.  e.,  a  character  must  often  be  divided 
between  two  or  more  actors.  (3)  Parts  are  overloaded.  The  three-actor 
division  often  forces  one  actor  to  bear  an  undue  proportion  of  the  entire 
play,  usually  the  "tritagonist."  (4)  Awkward  situations  are  caused  by 
"lightning"  changes  of  costume.  Cases  arise  where  only  a  few  verses  are 
allowed  for  an  actor  to  retire,  change  dress,  and  reappear  as  another  person. 
(5)  Bad  assignment  of  parts  results,  i.  e.,  actors  do  not  get  parts  which 
are  peculiarly  adapted  to  their  capacity.  (6)  The  rule  thus  interpreted 
assumes  that  the  state  limited  its  own  expenditures  and  the  demands  made 
on  the  choregus  to  a  certain  amount,  regardless  of  the  dramatic  require- 
ments of  a  particular  play.  (7)  I  hope  to  show,  fiorther,  that  the  "law"  is 
the  result  of  a  misconception,  due  to  the  unwarranted  application  of  an 
aesthetic  principle,  that  gradually  took  shape  and  was  later  formulated  by 
Aristotle  with  reference  to  the  drama  as  an  art-form,  to  the  economic 
conditions  under  which  the  drama  was  produced — two  things  which  cer- 
tainly may  be  distinct  and  are  not  necessarily  connected  with  each  other  at 
all.  Does  the  "law"  mean  that  not  more  than  three  speaking  persons 
should  be  present  at  once,  or  that  only  three  actors  were  employed  to  pro- 
duce a  play  ? 

I  hold  that,  owing  to  the  failure  to  distinguish  two  distinct  periods  in 
the  history  of  the  Greek  drama,  two  things  have  been  confounded  with 


1 8  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

each  other,  viz.,  an  artistic  law  and  an  economic  custom.  The  artistic  law 
excluded  a  fourth  speaking  person  from  the  scene;  it  had  no  necessary- 
connection  with  the  number  of  actors  used  in  the  production  of  a  play.  In 
dramatic  performances  outside  of  Athens  at  a  later  time  it  is  very  likely 
that  the  practice  prevailed  of  using  the  smallest  possible  number  of  actors 
to  present  a  play,  and  this  number  was  generally  three.  This  custom  was 
a  natural  outgrowth  of  material  conditions — conditions  essentially  different 
from  those  which  prevailed  during  the  classical  period.  A  re-examination 
of  the  plays  is  necessary,  therefore  (i)  to  point  out  the  above-mentioned 
objections  to  the  law  as  usually  applied,  i.  e.,  as  an  economic  law;  (2)  to 
show  that  it  does  apply  when  interpreted  as  an  artistic  law.  A  re-exami- 
nation of  the  evidence  will  also  enable  us  to  determine  what  the  "law" 
really  means. 

II.     THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  SO-CALLED  LAW  OF  THREE  ACTORS 

I.        N£/U,7;0"et9  VTTOKpLTOiV 

Perhaps  no  single  statement  has  contributed  more  to  a  false  conception 
of  the  "law"  than  the  much-debated  passage  in  Photius  (upon  whom 
Suidas  drew;  Hesychius  and  Photius  used  a  common  source)  s.  ve/xr/o-ets 
(yifjLrjai^  Hesych.)  VTTOKpirSiv:  ol  TTOLrjToi  iXdfifSavov  T/aets  vTroKptTas  KXr]po) 
vefirjdevra'i  viroKpLvovixivovi  (Hemsterhuys,  Bipont.  ed.  of  Lucian  I,  p.  429; 
MSS-vo/jievous)  TO.  8pdfJ.aTa,  wv  (c3  Hesych.)  6  voci/o-as  ets  Toitnov  aK/aiTOs 
(oxptTcos  Hesych.)  irapeXapi^dveTO  (Hesych.,  TrapaXaix^dveTac  Phot.).  In  the 
first  clause  it  is  stated  that  "the  poets"  (three'  in  number)  received  three 
actors  assigned  by  lot.  The  ambiguity  of  rpeTs  vTroKpiras  will  be  perceived 
at  once.  Shall  we  say  with  Sommerbrodt  (Scaenica,  p.  168),  Beer  {Zahl 
d.  Schausp.,  p.  7),  and  Hermann  (De  dislrib.,  p.  56),  that  to  each  single 
poet  were  assigned  three  actors,  viz.,  protagonist,  deuteragonist,  and  trita- 
gonist,  or  with  Meier  (Hall.  Litteratiirztg.  [1836],  p.  324  ff.)  and  Rohde 
{Rhein.  Mus.  XXXVIII  [1883],  pp.  2705.)  that  to  each  of  the  three  poets 
was  allotted  one  actor  only,  viz.,  the  protagonist  ?  The  succeeding  words 
v-KOKpivovp.(.vov<i  TO.  BpdfjxiTa  favor  strongly  the  latter  view,  for  vwoKpLvecrdaL 
is  the  technical  expression  for  the  part  or  activity  of  the  protagonist.  In  the 
didascalic  records  (/G.  II  972,  973,  974,  975)  the  formula  for  the  victorious 
protagonist  is  invariably  vTreKptvero  6  Belva.      Only  one  person,  the  pro- 

I  That  this  applies  only  to  tragedy  is  shown  by  the  number  three  instead  of  five. 
But  the  didascalic  inscriptions  IG.  II  972,  974c  (Wilhelm,  Urkunden,  p.  43),  975 
show  that  the  same  method  was  used  in  comedy  also;  each  comic  poet,  however,  con- 
tested with  only  one  play. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  I9 

tagonist,  is  ever  said  viroKpivta-OaL  to  Spa/xa.^  Furthermore,  the  phrase  u>v  6 
vtKT/o-as  €is  TovTTLov  tt/cptTos  TTapeXafxftdveTo  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  only 
on  the  assumption  that  it  refers  to  protagonists.  It  is  now  commonly 
agreed  that  o)v  6  viK-rjaa^  cannot,  as  Hemsterhuys  thought,  refer  back  to  the 
poet;  also  that  wv  cannot  refer  to  vTroKpiras  and  6  viKi^cras  to  the  poet 
(according  to  Schneider  Alt.  Theaterw.,  p.  130,  and  Grysar  De  Graec.  trag. 
qiialis  jiiit  circiim  temp.  Dem.,  p.  25).  wv  6  vwciycras  must  refer  to  vTroKpiras 
Toiis  vTroKpivovfjievov<;  to.  BpdfMiTa.  This  Step  toward  a  correct  interpretation 
was  reached  by  Meier  {loc.  cit.,  p.  325),  whom  Beer  (p.  7),  Sommerbrodt 
(p.  168),  Muller  {Philol.  XXIII  [1866],  p.  518)  followed;  but  these  scholars 
identified  the  contest  of  actors  here  mentioned  with  the  K/atVis,  the  prelimi- 
nary test  to  which  all  actors  had  to  submit  in  order  to  become  eligible  for 
assignment  to  the  poets.  This  position  is  obviously  untenable,  as  Rohde 
(p.  273)  has  pointed  out.  It  is  impossible  to  speak  of  a  single  victor  in  a 
contest  in  which  a  large  number  of  actors  qualify.  6  voci^o-as,  however, 
would  not  be  applicable  to  ol  vTroKptvovfj.evoi  if  secondary  actors  are  included. 
There  is  no  record  or  mention  in  all  literature  of  any  contest  between  the 
deuteragonist  and  tritagonist.  The  "victor"  here  referred  to,  therefore, 
has  no  connection  with  a  "contest  "  in  which  actors  were  selected  by  the 
archon,  nor  with  any  contest  of  deuteragonists  and  tritagonists  with  each 
other,  but  is  merely  the  protagonist  that  won  the  prize  over  the  other  pro- 
tagonists in  the  regular  contest  in  the  theatre.  This  actors'  contest  in 
Athens  is  abundantly  attested  by  the  inscriptions. ^  'Contests  were  insti- 
tuted at  other  festivals  outside  of  Athens  in  a  similar  manner.^  References 
in  literature  to  such  contests  are  numerous. 4 

1  This  technical  use  of  the  word  is  admirably  illustrated  in  Dem.  De  fals.  leg. 
246:  rovTo  rb  Spdfjia  (Phoenissae)  oiiSeirdnroT''  oiire  Qeddwpos  oir'  '  Apiarbd-rjixos  inreKpL- 
vavTO,  ....  Ai'Ti.y6vr]v  di  '2o(pOK\iovs  iroWaKLS  fx^p  Qe68upos,  TroXXd/ciS  5'  ' ApicrrddTj/jMS 
iiroK^KpiTai,  Any  actor,  however,  may  be  said  to  vwoKplveadai  a  given  role  {p-^pos  or 
irpixjUTTOv);  cf.  Alciphron  Ep.  iii.  35  Schepers  [71]. 

2  Dionysia:  tragic  actors'  contest  established  in  450/49,  cf.  IG.  II  971  b,  col.  iii 
as  restored  by  Capps;  comic  actors'  contest,  IG.  11  977  6' c',  introduced  probably 
ca.  307  {Am.  Jour.  Arch.  IV,  1900,  p.  85);  Lenaea:  tragic  actors'  contest  established 
ca.  432,  Reisch  Zeitschr.  oster.  Gym.,  1897,  p.  306,  IG.  II  977  rs;  comic  actors'  con- 
test, IG.  II  977  xi'  (mid.  iv  cent.)  and  as  early  as  the  Pax  (Korte  Rhein.  Mus.  LII, 
1897  pp.  172  ff.).  See  Wilhelm  Urkunden  dramat.  Auffuhr.  for  the  text  of  these 
documents;  the  fragments  are  designated  by  his  letters. 

3  At  Orchomenus,  ii  cent.  B.C.,  IG.  VII  3195  ff.;  at  Thespiae,  iii  cent.  B.C., 
ibid.  1760-62;  at  Oropus,  i  cent.  B.  c,  ibid.  416-20;  also  at  Samos,  cf.  Brinck  Diss. 
Halen.  VII,  no.  loi,  p.  211. 

4  Schneider  Alt.  Theaterw.,  p.  146,  cites  a  few  cases;  Plut.  De  Alex.  fort.  334  e; 
Vita  Alex.  29;  Quaest.  cojiviv.  ix.  757  b;  schol.  Aeschin.  De  fals.  leg.  15;  Athen.  xiii. 
584  d;  Aristotle  Eth.  Nicom.  iiii  6  24  (iii.  4);  and  other  references  are  given  by  Miiller 
Biiknenalt.,  p.  330. 


20  RULE   OF   THREE    ACTORS 

The  above  evidence  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  contest  of  actors  was 
common  wherever  dramatic  performances  were  held,  and  secondly,  that 
such  contests  at  Athens  extended  back  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
The  relatively  late  period  at  which  the  actors'  contest  was  supposed  to 
have  been  introduced  had  long  barred  the  way  to  a  correct  interpretation 
of  the  passage.  Rohde  {loc.  ciL,  pp.  272  ff.)  was  the  first  to  interpret  the 
passage  correctly  by  recognizing  the  contest  of  protagonists  as  a  part  of 
the  dramatic  contest. 

In  view  of  the  information  thus  gained  we  may  paraphrase  the  passage 
in  Hesychius  as  follows:  The  three  competing  poets  received  each  one 
protagonist  assigned  by  lot.  This  protagonist  acted  in  all  the  plays  of 
the  poet  to  whom  he  was  allotted.  The  actor  who  won  the  prize  for  act- 
ing over  his  two  competitors,  was  exempt  the  following  year  from  the 
preHminary  test  of  actors  who  desired  to  be  chosen  by  the  archon  as  pro- 
tagonists in  the  tragedies  (and  comedies)  of  that  year.'' 

The  method  described  by  the  lexicographers  is  in  accord  with  the 
Athenian  records  of  dramatic  exhibitions  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth 
century,  in  which  one  and  the  same  actor  appeared  in  all  the  plays  of  a 
poet.  Thus  Callippides^  acted  the  two  tragedies  of  Callistratus ;  the  two 
of  his  rival  were  acted  by  Lysicrates  (IG.  II  972,  418  b.  c,  Lenaea).  The 
formula  in  the  didascalic  records  for  tragedy  is  always:  poet,  plays,  actor. 
The  system  was  modified  before  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  when 
each  actor  appeared  in  one  play  of  each  of  the  three  poets,  e.  g.,  Astydamas 
exhibited  three  tragedies  in  341  b.  c.  :  his  Achilles  was  acted  by  Thettalus, 
his  Athamas  by  Neoptolemus,  and  his  Antigone  by  Athenodorus.  The 
tragedies  of  each  of  his  competitors  were  performed  by  the  same  three 
actors;  see  IG.  II  973  (Dionysia). 

J  The  exact  nature  of  this  preliminary  test  is  not  known.  By  some  kind  of  a  con- 
test, however,  the  archon  selected,  from  the  large  number  of  actors  who  had  applied  for 
admission  to  play  in  the  festival,  as  many  protagonists  as  there  were  plays  to  be  given. 
These  were  assigned  to  the  poets  by  lot.  It  is  probable  that  the  poets  drew  lots  for 
order  of  choice  and  then  each  poet  selected  his  actor.  The  method  of  choosing  the 
other  actors  for  each  play  is  unknown.  Probably  each  protagonist  chose  his  troupe. 
The  "competitive  test"  at  the  Chytri,  discontinued  and  then  revived  by  Lycurgus 
{Vit.  X  Oral.  841  fj,  was  very  likely  this  preliminary  test  of  the  comic  actors.  The 
victor  was  entered  in  the  list  of  protagonists  entitled  to  compete  at  the  City  Dionysia 
(eis  S.<iTV  KaroKiyeadai) . 

2  Wilhelm  JJrk.  pp.  52  f.  Rohde's  query  whether  it  were  possible  to  understand 
rpih  vTTOKpiTal  to  mean  three  protagonists  which  were  allowed  each  poet  is  not  to  be 
considered.  It  is  against  the  inscriptional  evidence  according  to  which  one  protagonist 
is  allowed  for  a  trilogy.  Besides,  it  causes  other  difficulties.  Which  one  acted  the 
sat)T-drama  ?  Did  all  nine  of  Rohde's  protagonists  compete  for  the  victory  ?  The 
lexicographers  state  explicitly  "whichever  one  of  the  three  actors  won,"  etc. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  21 

This  method  of  assigning  actors  to  poets  by  lot  did  not  apparently 
antedate  the  institution  of  the  actors'  contest  449  B.C.;  cf.  6  vu<rj(ra<i.^ 
This  supposition  is  further  justified  by  the  statement  of  Ister  that  Sophocles 
wrote  plays  for  particular  actors  and  by  the  tradition  that  certain  actors 
were  permanently  associated  with  Aeschylus.  Furthermore,  the  passage 
contains  no  reference  to  the  assignment  of  comic  actors,  for  in  comedy 
five  poets  competed  and  hence  five  actors,  not  three,  except  during  the 
Peloponnesian  War. 

What  then  does  this  gloss  teach  us  with  reference  to  the  number  of 
actors  assigned  to  each  poet  ?  Merely  that  each  tragic ^  poet  was  allotted 
one  protagonist.  The  passage  has  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  the  number 
of  actors  allowed  for  the  performance  of  a  play;  no  reference  is  made  to 
the  secondary  actors,  deuteragonist  and  tritagonist.  We  may  add  further 
that  our  sole  information  on  the  manner  of  assigning  actors  to  the  poets 
and  the  number  of  actors  assigned  to  each  is  derived  from  this  passage. 
In  other  words,  we  know  nothing  about  the  assignment  of  other  actors  than 
the  protagonists;  we  have  no  evidence  for  a  limitation  of  the  number  of 
actors  used  for  a  play.  The  current  conception  that  the  state  allowed 
any  special  or  Hmited  number  of  performers  to  a  poet  is  an  assumption 
based  on  no  statement  of  the  ancients,  and  is  traceable  to  a  misunder- 
standing of  this  gloss  in  the  lexicographers. 

2.      ARISTOTLE    AND    HORACE    THE    BASIS    FOR    THE    AESTHETIC    LAW 

We  may  now  pass  to  a  more  independent^  interpretation  of  Aristotle 
Poet.  iv.  1449a  11-14.4  In  the  preceding  clause  Aristotle  has  just  spoken 
of  the  origin  of  tragedy  and  comedy.     Continuing  he  says:    "Tragedy 

1  At  all  events  the  passage  is  describing  a  system  that  existed  after  the  institution 
of  the  actors'  contest  and  based  upon  such  a  contest. 

2  Meier,  followed  by  Rohde,  p.  272,  n.  i,  thinks  that  ol  TrotrjTai  refer  to  both 
tragic  and  comic  poets,  and  that  the  passage  is  applicable  to  the  old  comic  contests  in 
which  three  poets,  not  yet  five,  competed;  in  this  period,  three  protagonists  would 
have  sufl&ced.  But  we  now  know  (through  A.  Korte  Rhein.  Mus.  LX  [1905],  p.  428, 
cf.  IG.  XIV  1097  ff.  and  Aristotle  Ath.  Pol.  56.  3)  that  the  normal  number  of  com- 
peting comic  poets  at  the  Dionysia  was  five,  except  for  a  time  during  the  Peloponnesian 
War,  when  the  number  was  reduced  to  three  (from  431-425  to  405-388;  see  Capps 
in  Class.  Phil.  I,  p.  219,  n.  5). 

3  The  passage  in  the  lexicographers  assvmied  to  mean  that  the  state  allowed  each 
poet  three  actors  has,  I  think,  been  an  important  factor  in  the  misinterpretation  of 
Aristotle;  cf.  Hermann  De  distrib.,  adn.  i;  Miiller  Buhnenalt.,  p.  173,  nn.  i,  2. 

4  Kal  iroXKas  /itera/SoXcts  fiera^a^ovcra  17  Tpa'yipbia.  iiraia'aTo,  iTrel  ecxf  ttju  avTrji 
(piffiv,  Kal  t6  re  tCov  inroKptruv  irXrjOos  i^  €v6s  ei'j  dvo  irpwros  A^ffxt'Xos  ijyaye  Kal 
rh    ToO    x°P°^    rfK\(iTTw<Te    Kal   rbv    \6yov    Trpurayoji/icrTriv   TrapecTKeijacrev,   rpeis    di    Kal 


22  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

advanced  by  slow  degrees,  each  new  element  that  showed  itself  was  in 
turn  developed.  Having  passed  through  many  changes,  it  found  its 
natural  form  and  then  stopped."  The  changes  through  which  tragedy 
passed  are  explained  in  the  following  words:  "Aeschylus  introduced  a 
second  actor;  he  diminished  the  importance  of  the  chorus  and  assigned 
the  leading  part  to  the  dialogue;  Sophocles  raised  the  number  of  actors 
to  three  and  added  scene-painting"  (Butcher),  and  with  Sophocles  tragedy 
found  its  "natural  form,"  and  the  development  ceased. 

We  do  not  need  to  be  reminded  that  Aristotle's  information  on  the 
Attic  drama  is  drawn  from  the  texts  of  plays  extant  in  his  own  time,  and 
that  the  entire  theoretic  system  of  the  Poetics  is  based  on  observations 
taken  directly  from  the  plays.  A  recognition  of  this  relationship  is  essen- 
tial to  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  present  passage.  The  tragic  art  had 
developed  out  of  its  own  inherent  genius  as  an  independent  organism,  not 
circumscribed  by  limiting  laws  and  doctrines,  but  following  the  feeling  for 
the  beautiful  and  that  aesthetic  taste  which  strove  for  the  appropriate, 
the  correct,  and  naturally  the  lawful.  Purely  technical  prescriptive  laws 
played  no  part  in  this  development,  still  less  those  conventions  which 
grew  up  gradually  in  the  succeeding  stages  of  tragedy  to  meet  the  practical 
needs  and  conditions  of  the  time.  The  application  of  tragic  laws  based  on 
philosophic-aesthetic  speculation  was  out  of  the  question.  Only  after  a 
rich  and  highly  developed  material  was  accumulated  did  philosophy  enter 
this  field  and  make  it  an  object  of  investigation.  Thus  Aristotle  drew 
tragedy  into  his  all-comprehending  system.  From  this  material  he  shows 
us  the  indwelling  capacity,  the  genius,  of  tragedy.  The  canons  of  Aristotle 
were  not  law-giving  for  the  classical  tragedians. 

What,  then,  does  Aristotle  mean  by  the  statement  that  tragedy  found 

ffKr)voypa4>la>'  ^o<poK\7Js.  Diogenes  L.  iii.  56,  who  depends  upon  Aristotle,  says:  Hiffirep 
5^  t6  TraXaibv  iv  rfi  rpayifsdlq.  irpdrepov  ix^v  p.6vos  6  x°P^^  diedpafj.dTi^€v,  iia-repov  5^ 
Q^criTLS  iva  viroKpirrjv  i^edpev  xiirkp  rov  dLavairauecrdai  rbv  x°P^^-:  '^"■^  devrepov  Aiffx^^^os, 
rbv  8i  Tplrov  2o0o/c\^s,  Koi  ffvv€ir\T^po3<re  tt)v  rpaywdiav.  It  will  be  observed  that 
Thespis,  who  figures  in  the  account  of  Diogenes,  is  conspicuously  absent  in  Aristotle. 
Aristotles'  indefinite  ij  p-iv  awb  rtov  i^apx^vrwv  rbv  Sidvpaix^ov  seems  to  indicate  that 
he  could  name  no  particular  leader  of  the  dithyramb  as  the  discoverer  of  the  first 
actor.  Certain  tragic  poets  of  the  one-actor  period  were  doubtless  knoviTi  to  the 
philosopher,  but  dramatic  poetry  of  this  period  had  not  taken  on  a  literary  form  that 
justified  the  mentioning  of  the  names  of  any  of  its  representatives.  For  Aristotle 
the  drama  as  a  literary  form  began  wdth  the  addition  of  the  second  actor.  Of  the  period 
antedating  this  innovation  he  had  no  definite  information,  or  if  he  had  it,  he  considered 
it  of  no  importance.  Cf.  Hiller  Rhein.  Mus.  XXXIX  (1884),  pp.  322  ff.  The  Vita 
and  Suidas  follow  Aristotle  regarding  the  introduction  of  the  third  actor.  Themistius 
Or.  26,  p.  316  D.,  takes  issue  with  Aristotle. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  23 

its  "natural  form"  with  the  introduction  of  a  third  actor  by  Sophocles  and 
that  a  fourth  was  not  added  ?  Is  there  any  hint  that  this  limitation  was 
due  to  external  or  material  causes  ?  Not  the  slightest.  The  situation  is 
this :  Aristotle  with  the  plays  of  Sophocles  before  him  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  this  supreme  artist  never  allows  more  than  three  speaking  charac- 
ters upon  the  scene  at  one  time.  He  is  looking  at  the  matter  from  the 
aesthetic  point  of  view,  and  as  a  spectator,  not  as  one  behind  the  scenes 
who  can  describe  the  mechanism  of  the  production.  The  genius  of  the 
Greek  mind  and  the  material  of  tragedy  were  such  that  three  speaking 
persons  on  the  same  scene  met  the  demands  of  the  most  perfect  art.  The 
number  of  actors  used  in  the  production  of  a  play  did  not  concern  Aristotle, 
for  that  was  merely  an  economic  matter.  The  "natural  form"  of  a  play 
bears  no  relation  to  the  number  of  persons  employed,  but  to  the  characters 
introduced  and  more  especially  to  the  manner  of  their  employment  in  the 
scenes.  The  aesthetic  law  that  there  shall  be  present  on  the  scene  not  more 
than  three  speaking  characters  is  not  violated  if  a  manager  use  four  or  five 
actors,  or  even  an  actor  for  each  role. 

Horace  Ars  poetica  189,  190,  nee  quarta  loqui  persona  laboret,  is  but      f'*'J^' 
an  echo  of  Aristotle's  aesthetic  law.     Both  scholiasts'  imply  that  Horace 
is  speaking  of  the  number  of  persons  that  should  take  part  in  the  dialogue 
at  one  time,  not  the  number  of  actors  employed  nor  the  number  of  characters 
introduced  in  a  play. 

Diomedes  455  (Keil  Gram.  Lat.  I,  p.  491)  quotes  the  words  of  Horace 
in  a  connection  which  seems  to  show  beyond  all  doubt  the  real  significance 
of  the  Horatian  norm:  in  Graeca  dramate  fere  tres  personae  solae  agunt  a  ^ 
ideoque  Horatius  ait:  nee  quarta  loqui  laboret,  quia  quarta  semper  muta. 
at  Latini  scriptores  complures  personas  in  fabulas  introduxerunt  ut  speci- 
osiores  frequentia  facerent.     Note  the  contrast  between  the  paucity  of 

I  Porphyrio's  note  reads  thus:  tres  enim  personae  tragoediam  itemque  comoediam 
peragunt;  si  tamen  quarta  interponitur  non  loqui  debet,  sed  adnuere  statimque  dimitti, 
j.  e.,  when  three  persons  are  already  engaged  in  the  dialogue,  a  fourth  should  not 
speak,  but  nod  and  at  once  take  his  leave.  The  word  adnuere  shows  clearly,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  that  only  the  number  of  persons  present  at  once  is  thought  of,  not  the 
actors  used  for  the  performance.  Aero  has  the  same  interpretation:  quartam  per- 
sonam quando  inducimus  aut  omnino  non  loqui  debet  aut  pauca.  non  dixit,  taceat, 
sed  non  laboret  loquendo,  quo  opertior  fit  dictio.  inducitur  autem  quarta  persona  aut 
ut  annuat  aut  ut  ei  aliquid  imperetur.  Horace's  laboret  is  almost  equal  to  debet,  which 
shows  that  Horace  was  referring  to  the  impropriety  of  a  fourth  actor  speaking  when 
three  are  already  present;  he  is  writing  as  a  literary  and  dramatic  critic.  It  is  a  viola- 
tion of  one  of  the  artistic  laws  of  dramatic  art  to  admit  a  fourth  speaking  person  to 
the  scene.  Wickham  ad  191  explicitly  says  that  Horace  is  referring  to  the  number 
present  at  once,  not  to  the  number  of  actors  employed. 


24  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

speaking  persons  in  the  Greek  drama  and  the  Roman  preference  for  a 
crowd  upon  the  stage.  The  tres  personae  of  the  Greek  is  set  over  against 
the  complures  personas  of  the  Roman,  and  the  nee  quarta  loqui  persona 
laboret  with  the  explanatory  quia-clause  suggests  a  further  contrast,  which 
he  adds  in  the  words  ut  speciosiores  frequentia  facerent.  On  the  basis  of 
this  comparison  there  are  ^Aree  possible  interpretations  of  Horace:  (i)  Is 
the  number  of  characters  introduced  in  a  Greek  play  contrasted  with  the 
number  in  a  Roman  ?  Obviously  not,  for  the  fact  is  that  Greek  plays 
have  a  larger  number  of  dramatis  personae  than  the  Roman.  An  examina- 
tion of  Aristophanes'  plays  will  show  that  he  employs  an  average  of  fifteen 
characters  to  a  play,^  while  in  Plautus  and  Terence  the  average  is  twelve 
or  thirteen.  (2)  Is  the  number  of  actors  employed  to  produce  a  play  the 
point  of  contrast  ?  No,  for  this  does  not  affect  the  audience.  The  very 
purpose  of  the  complures  personae  in  a  Roman  play,  according  to  the  old 
grammarian,  was  to  make  a  display  before  the  spectators.  A  poet  might 
use  a  dozen  actors  in  a  performance,  an  actor  for  each  character,  but  if 
only  two  or  three  of  these  characters  appear  in  the  same  scene,  the  stage 
effect  would  be  the  same  as  if  two  or  three  actors  were  employed  for  all 
parts.  (3)  Is  the  reference  to  the  number  of  speaking  persons  present  at 
one  time  on  the  scene  ?  This  interpretation  alone  brings  out  the  main 
point  of  contrast.  In  speciosiores  frequentia  we  have  the  clew  to  the 
meaning,  which  has  to  do  only  with  the  number  of  persons  present  at  once. 
The  plays  of  Plautus^  and  Terence  present  many  scenes  in  which  five 
speaking  persons  engage  in  the  dialogue  at  once.^ 

1  The  Birds  has  twenty  characters  in  the  cast,  the  Acharnians  eighteen,  exclusive 
of  the  chorus. 

2  The  Stichus  is  perhaps  the  only  play  of  Plautus  which  can  really  be  played  by 
three  actors;  cf.  Leo  Gott.  Nachr.  1902,  p.  391. 

3  Five  actors  are  regarded  as  the  normal  number  for  the  production  of  Roman 
dramas;  cf.  Bergk.  Griech.  Litt.  Gesch.  Ill,  p.  86,  Fr.  Schmidt  Ueber  d.  Schausp.  bei 
Plautus  u.  Terence  u.  d.  Verteilung  d.  Rollen  unter  dieselben,  Erlangen,  1870.  Seneca, 
on  the  other  hand,  follows  the  Aristotelian  and  Horatian  norm  except  in  one  instance,  in 
Act  V  of  the  Agamemnon,  where  Agamemnon,  Electra,  Clytaemestra,  and  Cassandra  are 
simultaneously  on  the  scene  and  take  active  part  in  the  dialogue.  Though  the  fourth 
person  as  a  rule  is  silent,  many  of  Seneca's  plays  require  four  actors  for  production: 
cf.  Hercules  895-1054:  Hercules,  Amphitryo,  Megara,  Theseus  (mute);  choral  ode 
1055-1137  through  which  Amphitryo  and  Theseus  remain  as  mutes.  In  1138-1344 
are  present  Amphitryo,  Theseus,  and  Hercules.  In  this  scene  Theseus  is  a  speaking 
character,  but  is  the  same  actor  that  appeared  in  the  preceding  scene  as  a  mute,  for  he 
did  not  leave  the  scene  during  the  ode.  The  Troades  also  demands  four  actors:  409- 
523,  Andromache,  the  Old  Man,  Astyanax  are  present;  Ulysses  enters  v.  525.  The 
Old  Man  and  Astyanax  are  silent  during  the  remainder  of  the  scene.     A  fourth  actor  is 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK    DRAMA  2$ 

Horace,  therefore,  according  to  the  interpretation  put  upon  his  rule  by 
the  scholiasts,  Porphyrio  and  Aero,  and  the  grammarian  Diomedes,  was 
referring  to  the  number  of  characters  that  should  appear  at  once,  not  to 
the  number  of  actors  employed  in  the  production. 

There  are  artistic  reasons  for  excluding  a  large  number  of  persons 
from  taking  part  in  the  dialogue  at  once.'  A  large  crowd  of  speaking 
characters  on  a  scene  is  confusing  and  is  apt  to  divert  the  mind  of  the 
spectator  from  the  central  idea.  Those  who  have  attended  performances 
of  the  more  involved  plays  of  Shakespeare  will  appreciate  the  advantage 
of  a  small  cast.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  one  not  already  familiar  with 
the  characters  and  plot  to  follow  accurately  the  details,  or  even  to  keep 
track  of  the  more  important  characters.  The  introduction  upon  the  scene 
of  lords,  dukes,  officers,  courtiers,  gentlemen,  etc.,  and  the  characters  of  the 
subplot,  and  the  rapid  entrances  and  exits  of  these  characters,  is  confusing 
in  the  highest  degree,  and  it  requires  no  little  concentration  to  keep  one's 
attention  fastened  on  the  more  essential  aspects  of  the  drama.  The  play  is 
often  well  under  way  before  we  are  able  to  recognize  the  leading  characters 
by  sight.  Shakespeare's  art  was  complex.  There  was  a  leading  plot,  a 
subplot,  and  other  accessories  which  are  closely  related  to  the  central 
theme,  and  which  may  cause  confusion  at  first.  The  modern  stage  in 
general  is  fond  of  a  lively  action.  Something  must  be  taking  place  every 
moment.  With  the  modern  Hking  for  stage-business  as  illustrated  in  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  the  comparative  inactivity  of  the  persons  in  the  Greek 
drama  stands  out  in  bold  contrast.  Characters  do  not,  as  a  rule,  come 
and  go  in  rapid  and  successive  scenes,  nor  are  they  revealed  in  many 
different  situations,  and  thus  quick  shifts  of  scenery  are  avoided.  In 
general  the  action  is  slow  and  concentrated.  Three  speaking  persons  may 
be  on  in  the  same  scene,  but  usually  the  third  remains  inactive  while  the 
conversation  between  the  other  two  progresses.  A  fourth  speaking  char- 
acter, also,  may  be  present,  but  observes  silence  throughout  the  scene. 
The  extreme  simpUcity  of  the  two-  or  three-actor  dialogue  and  the  length 
of  each  scene  would  certainly  enable  the  spectator  to  rivet  his  entire  atten- 

necessary  to  present  the  Oedipus:  1-157,  Oedipus  and  Creon  speak;  288-402,  Tire- 
sias,  Oedipus,  Manto,  Creon  (mute).  Seneca's  tragedies  throw  considerable  light  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  law.  In  the  two  cases  cited  above,  four  actors  were  present 
at  once,  but  only  three  took  part. 

I  Schneider  Alt.  Theaterw.,  p.  134:  "Mehr  als  drei  Hauptrollen  wiirden  die  Hand- 
limg  nur  verwirren,  so  wie  mehr  als  drei  mit  einander  in  einer  Scene  Sprechende, 
was  Horat.  art.  poet.  192  ausdriickt,  etc."  It  is  the  number  of  characters  introduced, 
and  the  number  that  appear  at  once,  that  causes  the  confusion.  The  number  of 
actors  employed  does  not  affect  the  matter  (cf.  supra,  p.  23). 


26  RULE    OF   THREE   ACTORS 

tion  upon  the  words  of  the  character  and  the  evolution  of  the  single  plot. 
For  this  reason  the  simple  dialogue,  from  the  ancient  point  of  view,  had 
an  artistic  advantage.  On  the  Greek  stage  the  action  was  simple,  not 
complex.  About  one  central  theme  the  action  progressed  in  a  succession 
of  scenes.  The  introduction  of  extra  speaking  characters  to  add  natural- 
ness to  the  situation  or  for  stage  effect  was  unknown  to  the  Greek  drama, 
and  would  have  been  considered  highly  impertinent.  The  simplicity  of  the 
Greek  drama  made  it  unnecessary  for  more  than  three  to  speak  in  the  same 
scene;  a  fourth  person  would  have  been  superfluous,  and  would  have  had 
a  tendency  to  divide  the  attention  of  the  audience.  It  was  from  this 
standpoint,  the  standpoint  of  dramatic  propriety,  that  Aristotle  and  Horace 
were  treating  the  Greek  drama. 

The  number  of  performers  used  in  the  production  of  a  play  depended 
solely  upon  economic  conditions.  If  a  poet  introduces  thirteen  characters 
in  his  play,  the  only  reason  why  he  would  not  employ  the  same  number  of 
actors  would  be  either  the  lack  of  funds  or  the  paucity  of  actors.  But  the 
poet,  observes  Aristotle,  does  not  allow  more  than  three  of  these  characters 
to  appear  at  once.  The  trouble  occasioned  by  the  application  of  the  three- 
actor  rule  is  due  to  the  fact  that  commentators  have  confused  an  artistic 
principle  with  an  economic  matter. 

3.      WOULD    THE    "law"    HAVE     BEEN    A    NATURAL    OUTGROV^TH    OF    THE 
ECONOMIC   CONDITIONS   UNDER   WHICH   THE   DRAMA   DEVELOPED  ? 

Tragedy  according  to  Aristotle  developed  from  the  leaders  of  dithy- 
rambic  choruses.  These  leaders  were,  of  course,  the  dithjTambic  poets. 
The  manner  of  the  development  in  detail  Aristotle  passes  over  in  silence. 
He  may  have  conceived  the  process  to  be  somewhat  as  follows:  The  task 
of  training  and  developing  the  chorus  must  have  devolved  upon  the  poet 
alone;  he  had  to  teach  them  the  songs  and  dances.  The  only  possible 
means  by  which  he  could  instruct  them  in  the  rendering  of  the  odes  was 
to  stand  out  and  sing  before  them  in  the  manner  of  the  modern  singing- 
master.  After  a  long  period  of  drill  and  rehearsal  in  this  manner  the  poet 
might  naturally  be  thought  as  performing  the  function  of  the  poet-actor  in 
the  production  of  the  play.  "The  leader  of  the  dithyramb"  of  Aristotle 
corresponds  to  the  "some  one"  of  Pollux,^  the  person  who  mounted  a 
table  and  answered  to  the  chorus,  and,  in  a  somewhat  developed  form,  to 
Thespis. 

I  iv.  123:    Tpdire^a    dpxa-la    i<p''    fjv    7rp6    G^ffTrtSos    eh    tis    dva^as    rots    x"/'*'^'''*'^ 
dirfKplvaTo. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  27 

Thespis  was  the  particular  person  to  whom  late  antiquity'  attributed 
the  introduction  of  the  first  actor.  He  gave  the  first  dramatic  performance 
at  Athens  534  b.  c.  Thespis,  too,  was  poet-actor.^  The  exact  nature  of 
tragic  performances  in  the  one-actor  period  is  not  clear.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  such  performances  were  almost  entirely  lyrical  rather  than 
dramatic.  The  part  played  by  the  actor  was  not  important.  At  the  con- 
clusion of  the  first  ode  the  actor  in  answer  to  the  questions  of  the  chorus 
would  relate  some  adventure  or  incident  in  the  life  of  the  hero  of  the  story, 
probably  Dionysus.  The  narrative  of  this  person,  who  may  have  imper- 
sonated Dionysus,  Pentheus,  or  Lycurgus,  gave  the  chorus  a  pretext  for 
expressing  their  emotions  in  the  ode  that  was  to  follow.  During  the  execu- 
tion of  the  ode  the  actor  would  remain  upon  the  scene,  or  retire  to  his  dis- 
tant booth. 3  In  either  event  he  would  come  forth  again  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  ode  to  relate  some  other  adventure  in  the  career  of  the  person  about 
whom  the  action  of  the  play  centered.  This  process  continued  throughout 
the  drama:  The  stasima  were  interrupted  by  short  episodes  between  the 
actor  and  chorus.  The  function  of  the  actor-role  was  therefore  merely 
subsidiary.  There  was  no  development  or  portrayal  of  character.  The 
actor  only  answered  the  questions  of  the  coryphaeus. ^  The  relation  of 
the  actor  to  person  whose  makeup  he  wore  was  not  close.  He  was  nothing 
more  than  an  instrument,  or  utility  person,  to  subserve  the  chorus  in  which 
the  main  action  of  the  play  lay.  Such  was  the  crude  state  of  tragedy 
before  the  time  of  Aeschylus. 

The  drama  made  rapid  progress  in  the  hands  of  Aeschylus.  He  intro- 
duced the  second  actor,  lessened  the  importance  of  the  chorus,  and  made 
the  dialogue  the  chief  part.s     Sophocles  finally  introduced  the  third  actor 

I  Cf.  Hiller  op.  cit.,  pp.  322  ff.  Thespis  was  not  regarded  as  the  inventor  of 
tragedy  until  after  the  time  of  Aristotle;  see  also  supra,  p.  21,  n.  4. 

=  Cf.  Aris.  Rhet.  iii.  I,  p.  1403  6.'  inrOKpivovTO  yap  avTolris  rpayipdlas  ol  TroiTjral  rb 

TrpUTOV. 

3  I  have  avoided  raising  the  question  discussed  by  Bethe  Prolegomena,  pp.  27  ff., 
whether  the  actor  came  out  of  the  chorus,  or  was  an  addition  from  without,  since  it 
does  not  vitally  concern  my  argument.  However,  I  might  say  that  the  development  of 
tragedy  from  the  dith)Tamb  can  be  more  easily  and  naturally  explained  by  the  former 
theory.  Bethe's  arguments  in  no  way,  I  think,  invalidate  Aristotle's  plain  statement 
as  to  the  origin  of  tragedy. 

4  The  coryphaeus,  I  assume,  remained  in  the  chorus,  and  spoke  for  the  chorus  in 
the  dialogue  with  the  actor.     He  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  poet. 

s  According  to  Beer,  p.  5,  Hermann,  p.  15,  the  poet  remained  in  the  chorus  as 
leader  in  the  one-actor  period,  and  the  chorus  was  "protagonist,"  while  the  one  actor 
was  a  "parachoregematic"  addition,  or  deuteragonist.  Aeschylus,  however,  took  the 
poet  from  the  position  of  chorus  leader  and  made  him  protagonist.  The  Thespian 
actor  would  thus  remain  deuteragonist. 


28  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

(between  467  and  458),  the  "numerus  Justus,"  and  it  was  in  the  subsequent 
period  that  dramatic  art  reached  its  most  perfect  form.  The  history  of  the 
development  of  tragedy  at  Athens  may  be  divided  into  three  periods:  (i) 
the  so-called  one-actor  period  from  534  b.  c,  the  date  of  Thespis'  first 
appearance;  (2)  the  two-actor  period  from  ca.  500  B.C.;'  (3)  the  three- 
actor  period  from  ca.  465  b.  c.  on  through  to  the  full  development  of  the 
drama  in  Sophocles  and  Euripides. 

During  the  first  period,  before  the  drama  became  a  state  institution,  it 
depended  solely  upon  the  patronage  of  private  individuals  and  the  volun- 
teer performers,  and  therefore  rested  upon  an  economical  basis  com- 
parable to  that  of  the  traveling  companies  in  the  period  of  the  technitae. 
Thespis  was  the  manager  of  his  company.  Tragedy  was  not  yet  sub- 
sidized by  the  state,  and  a  liberal  patronage  of  the  rich  was  probably 
uncertain.  The  lack  of  constant  and  reliable  financial  backing  played  an 
important  part  in  the  elaboration  with  which  plays  were  presented.  From 
an  economic  standpoint,  therefore,  it  would  not  have  been  unnatural  if 
one  actor  had  been  used  for  many  roles.  Furthermore,  the  extent  of  the 
chorus'  role,  the  relatively  insignificant  parts  of  the  actor,  and  the  similar 
character  of  the  different  roles  (if  more  than  one)  would  have  facilitated 
such  an  arrangement.  The  sole  actor  remained  on  the  scene  during  the 
episodes,  and  if  he  was  to  reappear  in  the  following  scene  in  a  different 
role,  ample  opportunity  for  withdrawal  and  for  change  of  dress  was  given 
at  the  stasima.^  The  largely  predominant  lyrical  element  made  the 
actor's  role  very  slight.  The  combined  parts  most  probably  did  not 
exceed  two  hundred  verses,  by  no  means  too  great  a  burden  for  one 
actor.  However,  it  is  probable  that  in  the  one-actor  period  the  actor 
carried  only  one  role,  certainly  not  more  than  two.  This  statement  is 
in  a  measure  justified  by  facts  gained  from  the  earliest  plays  of  Aeschylus. 
The  Suppliants,  for  instance,  has  a  cast  of  only  three  characters,  to 
whom  Aeschylus  gave  a  total  of  420  vv.,  an  average  of  140  vv.  to 
the  character,  210  verses  for  each  actor,  assuming  that  Aeschylus  used 
only  two  actors.      The  chorus'  part  reaches  647  vv.     The  Persians  has 

'  At  this  stage  true  dramatic  action  became  possible  and  tragedy  assumed  an 
artistic  form  that  aroused  public  interest  and  won  the  recognition  of  the  state.  L=  it 
not  then  probable  that  this  innovation  was  synchronous  with  the  institution  of  the  cho- 
regic  system,  i.  e.,  502  /i  B.  c,  according  to  Capps  Introd.  0}  Com.,  pp.  27  ff;  505/4- 
502/1  according  to  Wilhelm  Urk.,   pp.  11-14? 

2  See  Dignan  Idle  Actor  in  Aeschylus,  pp.  12  ff.  The  actor  stayed  on  the  scene  unless 
the  poet  introduced  a  motive  (sometimes  an  awkward  thing  to  do)  for  his  retiring  to 
the  dressing-booth,  which  was  not  yet  so  conveniently  located  as  it  was  when  the  back- 
scene  was  introduced. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  29 

a  cast  of  four,  the  Septem  also  four,  leaving  out  the  interpolated  part  at  the 
end.  In  the  Septem  each  actor  may  have  played  two  roles  with  a  total  of  234 
w.  If  Aeschylus,  who  first  made  the  dialogue  the  chief  part,  could  em;~loy 
only  three  or  four  characters,  by  what  process  of  reasoning  do  we  conclude 
that  Thespis  with  one  actor  introduced  a  large  number  of  characters? 
Dramatic  action  began  with  the  two-actor  scene.  In  the  one-actor  scene 
there  was  essentially  no  action.  Characters  could  not  be  shown  in  relation 
to  one  another,  and  consequently  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  more  than  one  character.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  extent  of  the  chorus' 
part  in  the  Thespian  period  was  far  greater  than  in  Aeschylus,  and  the 
part  or  parts  which  fall  to  the  actor  was  very  slight.  One  actor  would 
have  sufficed  in  either  case. 

The  whole  status  of  the  drama  was  changed  in  the  second  and  third 
periods,  after  the  institution  of  the  choregia.  The  liberal  patronage  of  the 
state  gradually  freed  the  poets  from  all  concern  about  financial  matters, 
and  thus  made  it  possible  for  them  to  pursue  their  own  ideals  of  dramatic 
art,  to  work  out  problems  of  presentation,  arrangement  of  plot,  scenery, 
and  other  difficulties  which  every  new  form  of  art  must  meet  in  the  course 
of  its  development.  The  drama  enjoyed  a  free  growth,  "each  new  element 
that  revealed  itself  was  in  turn  developed."  The  poets  were  masters  of 
their  own  art  and  of  all  questions  pertaining  to  it,  and  were  the  source  of 
all  innovations;  while  the  provisions  made  by  the  state  were  adjusted  to 
their  needs.  The  statuesque  aspect  of  Aeschylean  characters,  their  long 
and  formal  speeches,  the  exclusion  of  a  third  or  fourth  speaker  from  the 
scene,  were  in  no  way  due  to  limitations  imposed  by  the  state  through  the 
choregic  system,  but  to  the  technique^  of  Aeschylus,  his  inability  to  throw 
off  entirely  the  conventional  mold  of  tragedy.  In  his  earliest  plays  Aeschy- 
lus experienced  great  difficulty  in  keeping  two  actors  employed,  and  only 
in  the  latter  part  of  his  career  did  he  learn  the  art  of  employing  three  actors 
at  once,  and  even  then  from  his  younger  contemporary,  Sophocles. 

Sophocles  was  the  first  to  see  the  dramatic  possibility  of  the  three-actor 
scene,  and  he  alone  was  able  to  handle  it  with  facility  and  skill.  In  the 
famous  scene  in  the  Agamemnon,  when  Agamemnon  makes  his  triumphal 

1  Maurice  Croiset  "Le  second  acteur  chez  Eschyle,"  Mem.  Acad,  des  Inscr.  X, 
pp.  193  ff.,  observes  that  the  part  of  the  second  actor  was  still  undeveloped  in  the 
early  plays  of  Aeschylus.  He  found  difficulty  in  keeping  two  actors  busy;  even  the 
two-actor  dialogue  was  not  yet  perfected. 

2  Richter  Dramaturgie  des  Aeschylus,  p.  122,  says,  in  reference  to  the  last  scene 
in  the  Suppliants,  that  if  Aeschylus  had  had  three  actors  he  would  have  made  Danaus 
enter  with  the  king,  forgetting  (Dignan,  p.  15)  that  in  this  scene  the  poet  is  unable  to 
keep  two  actors  busy. 


30  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

entry  in  the  chariot,  Cassandra  is  left  idle  during  Agamemnon's  speech,  in 
the  scene  with  Clytaemestra,  and  in  the  following  stasimon,  i.  e.,  through 
290  vss.  (cf.  Dignan,  op.  ciL,  p.  26).  The  long  scene  in  the  Orestes  between 
Electra  and  Pylades  will  show  Euripides'  inabiUty  to  use  three  actors 
successfully.  From  1018  to  1069  Orestes  and  Electra  engage  in  the  dia- 
logue, but  Pylades,  though  present,  does  not  interpose  a  word.  Then 
from  1069  to  1 177  there  is  a  conversation  between  Orestes  and  Pylades, 
while  Electra  is  silent.  A  second  dialogue  follows  between  Orestes  and 
Electra  (1177-1209),  and  Pyfedes  is  silent.'  Neither  Aeschylus  nor 
Euripides,  therefore,  could  easily  manage  three  actors  at  a  time.  Sophocles 
was  more  successful,  and  yet  he  would  not  have  attempted  to  bring  on  a 
fourth  or  fifth,  though  he  may  have  done  it  so  far  as  we  know;  the  state 
treasury  was  at  his  disposal.  The  three-actor  scene  was  the  ideal,  according 
to  Aristotle,  who  observed  that  scenes  involving  four  or  more  actors  were 
rare.     To  this  ideal  alone  must  the  Hmitation  be  attributed. 

The  development  of  the  tragic  art  was  one  of  natural  evolution.  Aes- 
chylus' two-actor  period  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  employed  only 
two  actors  for  the  performance  of  a  play,  but  that  only  two  characters 
appeared  at  a  time.  He  may  have  used  only  two  for  the  early  plays,  for 
the  characters  are  formal,  and  the  roles  few  in  number.  Assuming  two 
actors  for  his  early  period,  in  the  Supplices  one  actor  plays  a  single  role, 
the  other,  two  roles;  while  in  the  Persians  and  Septem  each  actor  plays 
two  roles.     This  would  be  open  to  no  serious  objection. 

The  third  actor,  likewise,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  number  of  actors 
used  for  a  play,  but  merely  to  the  number  present  at  once.  The  increase 
in  the  number  of  characters  in  the  fully  developed  plays  of  this  period, 
the  introduction  of  many  different  types — guards,  messengers,  princesses, 
old  men,  pedagogues,  kings,  queens,  heralds,  etc., — the  subtle  and  sharp 
delineation  of  individual  characters,  and  the  requirements  of  a  refined 
Athenian  audience,  would  have  made  it  imperative  to  increase  the  number 
of  actors  proportionately.  Two  actors  may  have  sufl&ced  at  an  earlier 
time  for  three  or  four  characters  who  indulge  in  formal  speeches  of  highly 
wrought  poetry  at  a  time  when  the  lyrical  parts  constituted  more  than  half 
the  play,  but  three  actors  would  have  been  quite  insufficient  for  the  eight 
or  ten  characters  of  individual  types  in  plays  where  the  chorus'  part  is 
comparatively  small.     The  main  interest  ceased  to  reside  in  the  lyrics  and 

I  Navarre  Dionysos,  p.  220:  "A  proprement  parler,  il  n'y  a  presque  jamais  dans 
le  theatre  grec  de  dialogues  a  trois,  mais  une  serie  de  dialogues  a  deux,  ou  I'un  des 
interlocuteurs  est  remplace  de  temps  a  autre."  This  is  especially  applicable  to  Euri- 
pides. 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK   DRAMA  3 1 

speeches.  These  were  supplanted  by  acting  and  the  portrayal  of  char- 
acter. The  drama  had  developed  from  a  crude  lyrical  representation  to  a 
highly  wrought  dramatic  form  of  art.  The  manner  of  production,  we  should 
like  to  believe,  progressed  and  improved  as  the  drama  became  more  perfect. 
Do  we  find  in  tracing  the  development  of  tragedy  any  cause  or  source 
from  which  a  restriction  of  the  number  of  actors  used  in  the  performance 
of  a  play  could  logically  have  arisen  ?  There  existed  no  such  cause.  A 
strict  limitation  would  not  have  been  a  natural  outgrowth  of  the  choregic 
system,  the  very  purpose  of  which  was  to  make  adequate  provision  for 
dramatic  exhibitions. 

4.      EVIDENCE    BASED    ON  THE   TERMS   PROTAGONIST,  DEUTERAGONIST,  AND 

TRITAGONIST 

The  use  of  the  terms  "protagonist,"  "deuteragonist,"  and  "tritagonist" 
and  the  absence  of  the  appropriate  term  for  a  fourth  actor,  "tetragonist," 
have  seemed  to  many  to  signify  that  a  fourth  performer  was  never  used 
in  the  presentation  of  a  Greek  play.  In  view  of  the  general  misunder- 
standing of  the  "law"  it  is  not  strange  that  the  non-occurrence  of  such  a 
term  should  have  been  taken  as  corroborative  evidence  and  thus  should 
have  led  to  this  conclusion.  The  facts,  however,  as  to  the  usage  of  the 
terms  will  show  that  no  inference  relative  to  the  number  of  actors  actually 
used  may  be  drawn  from  the  lack  of  the  words  "tetragonist"  and  "pen- 
tagonist." 

The  words  "protagonist,"  "deuteragonist,"  and  "tritagonist,"  as 
titles  by  which  the  three  actors  who  spoke  all  the  roles  of  a  play  are  desig- 
nated, are  late  in  origin,  and  even  in  the  late  period  are  conspicuously  rare. 
The  earliest  occurrence  of  "protagonist"  is  figurative — the  well-known 
passage  of  the  Poetics  (iv.  1449  a  16),  where  Aristotle  enumerates  the  inno- 
vations wrought  in  tragedy  by  Aeschylus.^  Demosthenes  does  not  use  the 
word.^  It  occurs  in  no  inscription  or  official  record;  in  these  the  leading 
actor  of  a  company  is  referred  to  always  as  wok/ditt;?  or  as  Koj/MotSos  or 
Tpaya»8os.3     The   leading  actor  was  not  designated  in  classical  times  by 

1  ijKd.TT(j}(Te  TO.  Tov  xopoO  Kal  rbv  XSyov  irpwrayuviffriji'  irapeaKevaaev.  In  Pol. 
1338  a  30  (v  [viii].  4.  5)  he  again  uses  the  word  in  a  metaphorical  sense:  wcrre  t6  Ka\6v, 
dXX'  ov  rb  dr/pifdes,  dec  irpwrayuviffTeTv.  The  figure  is  not  necessarily  derived  from 
acting,  as  will  be  shown  below. 

2  But,  of  course,  since  he  uses  "  tritagonist"  of  an  actor,  he  might  have  so  used 
"  protagonist." 

3  .\ristotle  Pol.  13366  29  (iv[vii].  17.  13)  speaks  of  Theodorus,  not  as  Trpwraycj- 
vKfT-qi,  but  as  vwoKpiT^s  rijs  rpayifidlas;  IG.  II  gTi  d  and  g  (Wilhelm  Urk.,  pp.  23, 
28),  7rape5/5a^ai/  ol  Tpay(p8ol  and  Kwnifidol.  In  the  didascaliae  viroKpLveffdai  and  the 
noun  are  always  used. 


32 


RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 


"protagonist"  either  in  inscriptions  or  in  literature.  Not  until  we  come  to 
Plutarch  do  we  find  "protagonist"  with  the  connotation  usually  attributed 
to  it.^  Lucian^  in  a  comparison  uses  the  term  with  reference  to  the 
"  leading  character"  in  a  calumny,  as  in  a  comedy.  Pollux, 3  Plotinus^  and 
schol.  Eur.  Phoen.  935  use  the  word  unequivocally  of  the  leading  actor 
in  a  dramatic  action. 

The  "protagonist"  was  the  principal  contestant,  the  champion,  the 
leader,  the  bearer  of  the  principal  role,  in  any  kind  of  action  in  which  a 
contest  or  struggle  of  any  sort  was  involved.  The  six  passages  above  quoted, 
all  of  a  late  period,  are  the  only  instances  I  have  found  in  which  the  noun 
means  the  "leading  contestant  in  a  play,"  the  first  actor,  and  the  verb  "to 
bear  the  leading  role"  in  a  play,  and  in  each  of  these  the  reference  to  the 
drama  is  made  clear  by  an  explicit  phrase  or  term  of  comparison.^  It  is 
perfectly  possible,  and  indeed,  as  will  appear  later  on,  probable,  that  the 
word  has  come  into  the  field  of  the  drama  as  a  term  distinctly  felt  to  be 
figurative,  as  it  clearly  is  in  the  two  passages  in  Aristotle  where  it  first  occurs 
and  in  other  passages  of  like  nature.  ^     The  literal  and  doubtless  the  original 

1  Mor.  816  /.•  droirov  ydp  icrri  rbv  fi^v  iv  rpay<fidicf.  ■rrpwTa'yuivi<TT-{)v,  Oebdwpov  rj 
IIwXoj'  6vTa,  fuadwTip  rt^  ra  rplra  \iyovTi  TroXXd/ciS  'iw&rdaL  Kal  TrpoffdLoK&yeffdaL 
rairecvus,  &v  iKetvos  €XV  '''^  diddrjfia  Kal  ffKrjiTTpov.  Here  protagonist  is  the  "star." 
In  Lysand.  446  d,  the  actor  who  plays  the  part  of  a  servant  or  messenger  is  said  to 
win  all  the  praise  and  to  be  the  "protagonist"  (TrpuiTayuvKTreiv) — the  "star"  r61e 
again — while  the  impersonator  of  the  king  is  not  even  listened  to  when  he  speaks. 

2  De  calum.  7:  irpCJTov  ixkv  5^,  ei  doKei,  ■wa.paydyujp.ev  rbv  irpcoTayuviffTTji'  toO 
dpdfxaTos, 

3  iv.  124:  v  fieffT)  ij.kv  ^a<rL\eiov  ij  cnn^Xaiov  ^  oJkos  evdoKos  fj  wav  tov  TrpurayojvKrTov 
ToO  bpdiiaTos,  i]  8i  Se^id  tov  SevTepayujvKTrovvTos  Karayibyiov  •  i]  5^  dpiaTepd  rb  evTeKicna.- 
Tov  ex«  irpdcrioirov.  According  to  this,  Creon,  being  a  third  role,  could  not  enter  from 
his  palace,  else  every  king  in  a  play  whose  back-scene  is  a  palace  must  be  a  fixst- 
class  part,  i.  e.,  of  the  protagonist.  Pollux  cannot  be  referring  to  the  classical  period, 
but  possibly  to  the  production  of  plays  in  the  post-classical  period. 

4iii.  2,  p.  484  Creuz.   (quoted  by  A.  Miiller,  p.  180,  n.  4):    wa-irep  iv  dpd/xacn  rd 
»  fi^v  rdrrei  avrbs  6  Trotijriys,  toTs  Si  xPV''''^^  oiicnv  ijdTj  ■  oi  ydp  avrbi  TrpuTaycjviffTTji'  ov8i 
beiJTepov  oiiSi  rplrov  iroiei,  dWd  didoiis  eKacxTip  roiis  Trpo(rrjKovTa$  \6yov$,  ktX. 

5  Tavra  p,rjx<i-vd(Tdal  (pacri  rbv  ^vpnridriv  'iva  Tbv  irpuiTayo}vi(TTT)v  dirb  tov  ttjs 
'loKdffTTjs  irpocrdiirov  fieraffKevdcrri, 

6  Plutarch,  6  iv  Tpaycpdlg^  Trpwr 0701  wot  175  and  0^01'  iv  Tpayipdlai^;  Lucian,  KaOdvep  iv 
Tots  KUfjLipdiais  and  6  wpcoTayuvKrTTjs  tov  dpdftaTOi  (the  slanderer  is,  as  it  were,  the 
leading  actor,  the  slandered  is  second,  the  hearer  of  the  slander  third,  see  below,  p.  37, 
n.  i);  Pollux  is  speaking  of  the  theatre,  and  schol.  Eur.  Phoen.  of  the  drama;  Plotinus, 
ihffTrep  iv  dpdnaffi, 

7  ApoUon.  Lex.  Horn.  s.  viroKplvaiTO  •  wpuTayuvKXTOvvros  rod  x°P°^l  [Plut.]  De 
mus.    ii4i<f,  irpwTaywvLffTovcrrjs  d-rjXovbTi  ttjs  iroi-fiaeus,  i.  e.,  in  comparison  with  the 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA     -^V  i:  33 

meaning,  "first  or  foremost  contestant"  in  a  battle,  or  a  struggle  compared 
to  a  battle  ("champion"),  is  common  enough  in  later  writers,  but  seems  not 
to  occur  early.  ^  The  word  is  found  also  in  the  judicial  sphere,  but  again 
only  in  late  writers. ^  In  all  the  instances  of  the  occurrence  of  "protagonist" 
(and  the  same  holds  true  of  "deuteragonist,"  "tritagonist,"  and  "hysterago- 
nist"3),  the  emphasis  is  always  felt  to  be  on  the  rank  (first  in  importance)  or 
position  (first  in  order)  of  the  person,  rather  than  upon  the  relative  grade  or 
merit  of  the  person's  performance. 

The  investigation  of  the  word  "  deuteragonist "  produces  a  surprising 
result.  Only  two  passages  can  be  cited  where  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 
the  term  means  the  second  actor  of  a  play,  let  alone  "actor  of  second  parts." 
In  the  sole  passage  in  which  the  word  occurs  in  the  fourth  or  third  century 
(it  does  not  occur  before  this  time  at  all),  viz.,  Dem.  De  jals.  leg.  10:  (Aes- 
chines)  koX  c^wv  ''l(r-)(avhpov  Tov  NeoTTToAcjiiov  SeuTepaytovicrT^v  -rrpocTLdiv,  ktX., 
its  significance  is  doubtful.  However,  the  more  natural  interpretation 
and  the  one  that  seems  to  be  required  by  the  context  is  to  understand 
it  to  mean  the  one  who  as  orator  seconds  another  in  speech, 4  i.e.,"  Aeschines 
it  is  who,  having  Ischander,  Neoptolemus'  son  (as  orator)  to  'play  second 
fiddle'  to   him,  to  assist  in  forwarding  his  designs,  applied  himself  to  the 

music;  Plut.  Mor.  ^^2  d,  fiia  dperT]  irpdjTayuvicrTet  irpd^eus  eKdffTtjs;  Clearchus  apud 
Ath.  2576,  iirrjpeffias  TrptorayuviffT-^s.  Suidas'  statement  about  Chionides,  Trpcorayu- 
viar^p  TTJs  dpxalas  KufiipSlas,  i.  e.,  "  leading  representative  "  in  the  sense  of  first  repre- 
sentative, is  an  easy  step;  cf.  the  judicial  use  of  the  word  below.  We  need  not  change, 
with  Wilamowitz  Gott.  gel.  Anz.,  1906,  p.  620,  to  irpwrov  dyojvKTTi^v,  nor  with  Schenkl 
to  TrpoaywviffT-^v. 

1  E.  g.,  Etym.  Mag.,  p.  612,  51,  p.erd  ■n-pop.dx<^v  dapicrrvv  ■  dvrl  tov  iv  ry  irposra- 
ywviffTwv  ofiiXlq.;  Maccab.  ii.  15,  30,  irpwr ay uvKrral  virip  rwv  ttoKitQiv;  Greg.  Nyss., 
p.  137  D.,  6  yevvaloi  rrj^  dXrjOelas  irpurayupicrTTfis,  etc. 

2  The  scholiast  to  Dem.  Lept.,  p.  455.  8  Dind.,  referring  to  the  fact  that  the 
oration  was  a  devrepoXoyla,  and  contrasting  the  position  of  those  \ayxo.v6vTtj3v  tov  \iyeiv 
Tr)v  irpwTTjv  x'^po-",  adds  that  the  first  oration  against  Aristogeiton  was  also  a  devTfpo- 
\oyia,  TrpwTayu}vi(TTovvTos  tov  XvKoipyov  (cf.  Hyp.,  6  AvKovpyos  Ute  -irpdrepos  X^ywv). 
It  seems  clear,  in  spite  of  the  argument  of  Schenkl  Herm.  XLII  (1907),  p.  334,  that  the 
order  of  the  speakers  is  the  chief  idea  here  in  the  figure.  But  ibid.,  p.  467.  14,  raiTT^v 
Si  p.bv7tv  xaXeiTTjv  koL  dvTa.y(i)vi^op.4vr)v  exei  (sc.  dvTLdecnv).  diSirep  oiiK  iOdppijffev  avTrju 
TrpwTayuvKTTOvaav  deivai,  and  schol.  Dem.,  p.  256.  27  Dind.,  TrpwTayuvKxrQs  dadyerai 
(to.  KecpdXaia),  the  importance  of  the  action  itself  is  emphasized.     See  below,  p.  30,  n.  3. 

3  Referred  to  in  the  Thesaurus  and  in  Liddell  &  Scott  under  devrepdycjviffTris,  but 
not  given  5.  v.     Cf.,  however,  v<rTepo\6yos,  TrpwTo\6yos. 

4  In  this  sense  the  scholiast  also  interprets  the  passage:  irapix^Tai  /xiv  tois 
Mffx^vov  \byoLS  17  fiapTvpla-  ovk  dir-^WaKTai  Si  Kal  (TKdsntiaTos.  inroKpLT7]v  ydp  €xci 
rbv  ffvvayu)vi^6fj.€vov,  i.  e.,  Ischander,  an  actor,  is  a  ffvvayojvijT-ris  in  another  capacity. 
But  for  o-vvayuviffTT^s  in  its  technical  sense,  cf.  infra,  p.  35.     So  Pabst  interprets  the 


34  RULE   OF  THREE   ACTORS 

council  and  the  people,  and  persuaded  you,  etc."  The  other  interpreta- 
tion,^ viz.,  "having  Ischander,  the  deuteragonist  of  Neoptolemus'  com- 
pany," would  be  almost  pointless  in  this  connection.  The  word  is  quite 
rare.  Lucian^  and  Suidas  employ  it  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  In  a  cor- 
rupt scholium^  to  Demosthenes  and  in  the  passage  of  Pollux  quoted  above 
(p.  32,  n.  3)  it  means  the  second  actor  of  a  troupe.  The  definition  given 
by  Hesychius4  does  not  indicate  the  sphere  of  the  word. 

"Tritagonist"  occurs  often,  but   is  a   term   apparently  invented   by 
Demosthenes,  was  applied  only  to  Aeschines,^  and  was  never  in  any  period    [ 
a  recognized  title.     The  word  is  never  mentioned  in  late  writers  except  with 
direct  reference  to  Aeschines,  or  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  clearly  but  a  remi- 
niscence of  Demosthenes'  use  of  it.^ 

word  metaphorically,  translating:  "indem  er  dem  Ischander  dem  Sohne  des  Neop. 
die  zweite  Rolle  bei  seinem  Umtreiben  iibertrug;"  Heslops:  "who  having  Ischander 
the  son  of  Neoptolemus  to  play  second  part  to  him;"  Taylor:  "the  ser\-ant  or  assistant 
of  Neoptolemus;"  "quasi  secundas  partes  negotii  suscepti  tractantem,"  Thesaurus. 

1  Schafer  Demos,  u.  seine  Zeit  1^,  p.  247  and  Volker  Diss.  Halen.,  IV,  p.  200, 
favor  this  interpretation,  which  Kirchner  Pros.  Alt.  adopts.  Dobree:  "Ischander  of 
Neoptolemus'  company." 

2  Peregr.  36:    Kal  fidXicrTa  6  yevvddas  6  Ik  HaTpQv,  8g.Sa  exwy,  oii  (pav\os  devrepa- 
"ywvKTTTjs;    Suid.  v.  ' A^poydffT-rjs  :    ' A^poydcrrTis  ^pdyyos,  5s    Kara   dXKTjv  ffiofiaros   Ka  \ 
ffvfioO  rpax^TtfTa  (f>\oyoei.dT]s  ^v,  SevrepayuvicrTTjs  rvyxdvuv  'Bavduvos.     Here  we  should 
correct  to  read  SevrepayuvKXTov,  "finding  in  Baudon  (i.  e.,  Bauto)  a  helper;  "   cf.  Cic. 
Brut.  69.  242 :  Q.  Arrius,  qui  fuit  M.  Crassi  quasi  secundarius. 

3  Schol.  Dem.  De  pace  58.  6:  viroKpird^  eKdXovf  oi  dpxaToi  rods  vvv  Tpaytpdoiis 
"Keyo/JL^vovs,  toi)j  TroiTjTds,  oroj'  rbv  ^vptirLdriv  Kal  ApKTTocpdvrjv,  roi/s  de  vvp  vwoKpiTds 
(oSroi  5^  ijffav  Svo)  rbv  fikv  SevTepaycovLarriv,  rbv  5^  TpirayuvicrTriv,  avroiii  S^  roi/s  Troirjraj 
rQv  dpapLdTuv  rpaytfidovs  /cat  Tpay(iidodida<TKdXovs. 

4  5euTe/)a7aii't(rTT7s,  devrepos  dywvi^dfjLevos.  Notice  that  Hesychius  does  not  say  rd 
Se&repa   dyuvi^b/jievoi. 

5  Except  in  schol.  Dem.  De  pace  quoted  in  n.  3.  Observe  that  in  Pollux  (p.  32, 
n.  3)  the  left  door  is  said  to  belong  to  "the  cheapest  character." 

6  Demos.  De  corona  267:  koI  KaKbv  /ca/ccDs  <re  oi  Oeol  diroXicreiav,  irovijpbv  6vTa 
Kal  ttoXItijv  Kal  TpiTaydiviaT-^v ;  ibid.  265:  irpiTayuviffTeTs,  iyw  S'  idewpovv;  ibid  262: 
^ifivX(jp  Kal  'SiWKpdrei  iTpirayuvltrTeis ;  ibid.  129:  rbv  KoXbv  dvSpcdvTa  Kal  TpiTayuvurrTjv 
&Kpov  ii,idpe^4  <re.  Cf.  also  De  fals.  leg.  247,  De  corona  180.  Vit.  X.  oral.  840  a 
quotes  Demosthenes  as  saying  of  Aeschines:  Kal  TpiTayuvicrTwv  ' KpiaroS-fifit^  ii>  roTs 
AiovvffLois  Ster^Xet.  It  should  be  observed  that  wherever  Aeschines  is  spoken  of  as 
"tritagonist"  to  anyone,  it  is  with  reference  to  performances  in  the  country.  Bekker 
Anec.  Gr.,  p.  309  .  32,  TpiTaywvL(TT-f)%  ;  6  Ai<rx^'''7S.  dSoKt/iiiraros  Tdv  viroKpnCbv  iv  ry  oS 
TpiT-Q  T(i|et  KaTapid/jLovfievoi.     These  passages  seem  to  show  that  the  term  "tritagonist" 

was  inseparably  connected  and  associated  with  the  name  of  Aeschines,  which  would 
not  be  the  case  if  tritagonist  was  the  term  commonly  used  of  an  actor  who  spoke  "the 
third  parts  of  a  play."     Suidas  s.  So</>o/cX^s:    oCtos  irpdros  rpta-iv  ixp'^a-aro  inroKpirals 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  35 

How  then  did  these  terms  come  to  be  applied  to  actors  ?  A  plausible 
explanation  and  the  one  most  consistent  with  other  evidence  is  as  follows: 
The  principal  actors,  i.  e.,  those  that  competed,  began  to  be  called  dytovio-Tat 
soon  after  the  introduction  of  the  actors'  contest  in  449,  a  term  borrowed 
from  athletic  contests.  In  that  case  o-waywno-Tat  would  be  the  appro- 
priate designation  for  those  secondary  actors  who  were  the  assistants  of 
the  aywvL(rTrj<i,  but  did  not  themselves  contest  for  the  prize.  In  the  course 
of  time  dywvto-Tat  came  to  be  a  general  term  for  all  actors.^  The  talent 
and  capabihty  of  the  different  dycovio-rat  varied  with  individuals  and  so 
led  to  their  classification  according  to  the  relative  histrionic  ability  of  each. 
The  words  "protagonist,"  "deuteragonist,"  " tritagonist"  were  formed, 
therefore,  as  a  means  of  differentiating  the  classes  or  grades  of  actors. 
The  leading  actor,  the  "star,"  was  protagonist,  an  actor  of  the  first  grade. ^ 
He  played,  of  course,  the  first  part,  and  in  the  period  of  the  technitae  other 
parts  in  addition  to  the  first.  The  deuteragonist  was  an  actor  of  the  second 
class.  He  played  the  second  part,  and  in  the  three-actor  period  such  other 
parts  as  the  case  required.  The  tritagonist,  a  third-class  actor,  played  the 
least  important  role  or  roles  as  the  case  might  be.  The  terms  never 
signified  in  the  classical  period  the  actor  of  first,  second,  and  third  parts 
respectively. 3     This  would  imply  necessarily  that  the  lines  of  demarcation 

Kal  Tip  KoKovfi^vcfi  TpLTayuvKTTrj,  T(f5  Ka\oviJ.4v(f>  '  TpiTayuvicTT'^ '  is  a  reference  to 
Demosthenes'  application  of  the  term  to  Aeschines.  Apollonius  Vit.  Aeschin.,  p.  13: 
Alffxl-vi]^  ....  TpirayuviffTTis  iy^vero  rpayifidiuv,  Kal  iv  KoXKvrip  irore  Olv6p.aov  viroKpi- 
v6fj.€vos  Kariireaev.  Demochares  (ap.  Vit.  Aeschin.,  p.  11)  relates  the  same  story  at 
greater  length,  but  thinks  that  the  story  deserves  little  credence.  The  story  is  also 
told  by  Hesychius  s.  apovpato^  OlvS/xaos,  and  by  Harpocration  s.  'I<rxo-v8pos.  Juba 
is  simply  generalizing  from  Dem.  De  fals.  leg.  247  when  he  says  (apud  schol.  ad.  loc.) 
that  the  roles  of  kings  are  always  given  to  "tritagonists."  See  Volker  "De  Graec. 
fab.  actoribus,"  Diss.  Halen.  IV  (1880),  pp.  197  ff.  Of  Antiphanes'  play  Tritagonist 
we  know  nothing.     Aeschines  himself  is  made  to  use  the  word  in  Ep.  12.  i. 

» Cf .  Poland  De  collegiis  artif.  Dionys.,  p.  xi :  ut  enim  voce  dycoviffral  ei  signifi- 
cantur  in  titulis,  qui  certamini  cuidam  intersint,  ita  avvayuvicrTal  vario  modo  de 
artificibus  una  de  palma  certantibus  usurpatur.  The  use  of  dyuviffral  to  designate 
actors  is  common  in  inscriptions  of  the  guilds:  CIG.  II  3082.  18  (Liiders  89):  diimra 
iK  tQv  idiuv  iOrjKev  rots  dyu}VL<jTa.'ls;  Lebas  .45.  Min.  Ill,  1620  c  (Aphrodisias) :  5id  rd 
Toi>s  dyuiviaTCLs  ixxTepov  dirodrjuTJcrai,  ktX.;  Arch.  Epigr.  Mitt,  aus  Oesterreich  IX,  p.  130, 
n.  98:  rt^T)  Tovs  dyojvKTTas  dveKaX^a-aro;  Lebas  III.  139  (Ephesus):  ra  difiara  rois 
dyuviffrais  aii^rjcavTa. 

2  There  is  no  reason  why  more  than  one  protagonist  should  not  be  in  the  perform- 
ance of  a  play.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  many  presentations  were  given  at 
Athens  by  an  all-star  cast.  The  fact  that  an  actor  plays  second  part  to  another  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  the  actor  is  of  second  grade. 

3  Wilamowitz'  contention  {Gott.  Gel.  Anz.  [1906],  p.  620,  n.)  that  irpuiT  ay  us  viffT-qs 


36  RULE   OF  THREE   ACTORS 

between  the  first,  second,  and  third  parts  in  the  plays  were  clearly  and 
firmly  drawn,  which  is  obviously  not  the  case.  The  protagonist  plays 
insignificant  parts  along  with  the  first  part ;  the  deuteragonist  plays  second 
part  and  characters  of  little  importance,  while  the  tritagonist  very  often 
plays  one  role  or  more,  vastly  more  important  than  the  minor  roles  of  the 
other  two  actors.  Shall  we  call  all  the  roles  played  by  the  deuteragonist 
second  parts,  irrespective  of  the  relative  importance  of  these  parts  ?  No, 
this  would  be  clearly  inaccurate.  The  definition  "actor  of  first,  second  or 
third  parts"  is  wrong  and  misleading  in  that  it  implies  an  arrangement 
and  disposition  of  the  roles  in  the  plays  which  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the 
actual  facts,  viz.,  that  all  first-class  parts  should  be  taken  by  the  pro- 
tagonist, all  second-class  parts  by  the  deuteragonist,  and  all  third-class 
parts  by  the  tritagonist. 

Perhaps  one  cause  of  the  confusion  which  has  prevailed  since  Bottiger 
regarding  the  real  significance  of  these  terms  has  been  the  tendency  to  inter- 
pret the  plurals,  to.  Tr/awra,  TO.  8evTepa,  ra  rptra  and  the  Latin  partes  as  if 
they  implied  a  plurality  of  roles  rather  than  a  single  role.  But  a  considera- 
tion of  the  pertinent  passages  will  show  that,  even  when  xpwTaywvio-Tiys 
means  to,  Trpwra  dywvi^Ojuevos,  the  meaning  must  be  "actor  of  the  leading 
role,"  not  roles.  The  comic  poet  Strattis,  using  the  neuter  plural,  alludes 
to  the  fact  that  the  unfortunate  Hegelochus  played  the  title  role  in  Euripi- 
des' Orestes.^  Menander^  indicates  the  wife's  proper  subordination  to  her 
husband,  and  the  lot  of  the  plain  knave  in  comparison  with  that  of  the 

is  a  word  with  a  fixed  technical  meaning  and  signifies  to.  irpCiTa  a-ywvi^bfievos,  is  not 
supported  by  the  facts.  In  answer  to  his  query,  "wo  gibt  es  eine  Komposition,  in  der 
■n-pwros  den  zeitlich  ersten  einer  Reihe  bezeichnet  ?"  we  may  cite  Hesychius'  definition 
of  bevTepayu}vi.(TT-r]s:  6  bedrepos  dyuvi^6iJ.€uos,  and  of  TpiTa^wviarrfs  (after  'YpifiiaKov): 
6  Tplros  a/yu}VL^bnevos.  So  wpuiTayusvicrT'^s  is  6  irpGiros  dycjvi^dnevos,  as  well  as  to. 
irpwTtt  dyu)vi^6iJievo<!.  This  meaning  is  natural  if  we  remember  that  these  terms  were 
quite  as  commonly  applied  to  orators  as  to  actors.  The  first  speaker  in  point  of  time 
came  to  be  regarded  as  the  leading  or  best  orator;  the  one  who  seconded  him  in 
speech,  his  assistant,  was  probably  as  a  rule  inferior  in  ability.  Hence  the  orator 
or  actor  who  played  "second  or  third  fiddle"  came  to  be  considered  of  inferior  rank. 
In  such  compounds  irpCiTos,  Se^repos,  etc.,  generally  refer  to  rank,  it  is  true,  but  sequence 
in  the  one  is  readily  transferred  to  sequence  in  the  other.  Plotinus  (below,  p.  70, 
n.  3)  has  wpt>)Tay<j}vi.<TT'f)S — Setirepos  (sc.  dyuivLffT^fis  or  VTroKpiTrji) — Tplros. 

1  Fr.  I,  Kock,  p.  711:  the  archon,  apparently,  regrets  that  he  spoiled  this  play, 
'Ky4\oxop  fuffOtaffdfievos  to.  irpura  tQi>  iirdv  X^7etj'. 

2  Fr.  484,  Kock,  p.  140:  TOk  Seiyrep'  del  ttjv  yvvaiKa  Set  X4yei.v,  ttjv  5'  rjyefwvlav  tQv 
8\uv  rbv  fivSp'  exeiv.  In  the  household  irpureuei  yvv^.  Fr.  223,  Kock,  p.  64:  irpdrTfi. 
5'  6  K6Xa|  dpKTTO.  irdvTcov,  de^repa  6  ffVKO(f>dvTt}S,  6  KaKorjdrjs  rplra  X^76t — "plays  the 
third  role,"  Trapa  TrpouSoKtav  for  rd  rplra  ex^'-  The  decent  man's  lot  is  even  worse.  If 
the  figure  is  derived  from  the  drama  is  there  not  here  a  suggestion  of  a  "  tetragonist  "  ? 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  '  37 

flatterer  and  sycophant,  in  language  that  suggests  either  the  theatre  or  the 
law  court.  A  better  illustration  is  Luc.  De  calumnia  133,  where  the  three 
leading  roles  in  a  comedy  are  compared  with  the  three  parties  to  a  slander.' 
Here  both  the  sequence  and  the  relative  importance  of  the  three  are  brought 
out,  with  emphasis  on  the  sequence.  There  are  just  three  roles  and  three 
persons  to  act  them.  Cf.  also  the  four  roles  for  the  four  performers  in 
Luc.  Tyr.  22. ^  In  Plut.  Mor.  816/,  quoted  above  (p.  32,  n.  i)  6  to. 
rpira  Xc'ywv  is  referred  to  as  carrying  the  single  role  of  king,  and  so 
Pollux  (p.  32,  n.  3  above)  designates  the  left  door  of  the  scene  as  the 
residence  of  the  "cheapest  role"  or  character — not  the  cheapest  actor  or  the 
bearer  of  several  roles.  Cicero  Div.  ad  Caec.  15  develops  a  similar  idea  in  a 
passage  that  has  been  misundertsood.3  He  has  in  mind  a  scene  in  which 
two  persons  participate,  the  actor  of  the  star  role  and  the  bearer  of  a  minor 
role.  The  former  was  also  the  leading  actor,  even  if  he  had  not  so  good  a 
voice.  Cicero  Pro  Flacco  27  again  makes  it  clear  that  partes  is  a  single 
role'* — a  conclusion  that  cannot  be  doubtful  to  the  reader  of  the  prologue 
of  the  Phormio  of  Terence. 

We  may  now  better  understand  the  derogatory  significance  of  the  term 
"  tritagonist "  as  applied  by  Demosthenes  to  his  bitter  enemy,  Aeschines. 
It  has  always  been  difficult  to  comprehend  why  the  "actor  of  third  parts" 
in  a  Greek  play  should  have  been  so  despised,  for  the  roles  assigned  to  the 
actor  in  a  three-actor  distribution  are  exceedingly  important.  Such  an 
actor,  we  may  affirm  with  a  high  degree  of  certainty,  was  not  as  a  rule 

1  rpiQv  5'   6vT(j}v  vpoffiiiruv,   Kaddirep  iv  rais  KcofXifiSlaLS,  rov  dia^dWovros  Kal  rov 

dia^aWofi^vov  Kal  rod   irpbs  6v  ij  8ia^o\T]   ylverai irpuTOv  ....  Trapayayafiev 

rbv  Trpu)Tay(i}vi.(TTi]v  rod  5pap.a.Tos.     In  135-36  6  irpSrepos  \6yos  (irpwTayuvKXTrjs)  is  con-   r 
trasted  with  6  Sevr^pov  X670S  or  6  Sei/repoi   X670S.     Cf.  Aristoph.  Eccl.  634:    Srav  ^S-q 
'70)  diaTrpa^dfj,evos  irapabCi  <roi  devreptd^eiv  =  Td  Seirepa  Xiyeiv,  and  TrpwroXoyla  in  schol.     ! 
Dem.,  p.  189  Dind.,  and  elsewhere  in  judicial  terminology. 

2  fiefi^piffrai.  di  is  7roXXoi)s  t6  epyov  wcrirep  iv  Spd/iari  •  Kal  rd  piv  TrpQra  iyoi)  inreKpi- 
vdfjL-qv,  TO,  di  de&repa  dk  6  iraTs,  rd  Si  rplra  (5i'  6  njpavvos  avrds,  t6  ^l\l/os  Si  iraffiv 
vir-qpirriffev..     The  Sword  was  of  course  a  mute. 

3  ut  in  actoribus  Graecis  fieri  videmus,  saepe  ilium  qui  est  secundarum  aut  terti- 
arum  partium,  cum  possit  aliquanto  clarius  dicere  quam  ipse  primarum,  multum 
submittere,  ut  ille  princeps  quam  maxime  excellat.  The  "  Greek  "  actors  are  speci- 
fied because  they  were  the  best  in  traihng  and  ideals.  In  Pliny  A^".  H.  vii.  12.  10.  51, 
Spinther  secundarum,  tertiarumque  Pamphilus,  and  many  other  passages  that  could 
be  cited,  we  need  not  think  of  a  plurality  of  roles. 

4quis  umquam  Graecus  comoediam  scripsit,  in  qua  servus  primarum  partium 
non  Lydus  esset  ?  Where  the  slave-role  is  the  leading  role  the  slave  is  a  Lydian. 
Terence  Phonn.  prol.,  quia  primas  partes  qui  aget,  is  erit  Phormio  parasitus,  per 
quem  res  geretur  maxime. 


38  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

held  in  disrepute.  Why,  then,  does  Demosthenes  continually  taunt 
Aeschines  with  this  opprobrious  term  ?  The  answer  is  stated  in  the  old 
gloss  (Bek.  Anec.  Gr.,  p.  309.  32)  on  TpiTaywvto-ri^s :    6  Aiaxivr^s  a>s  dSoKt^w- 

TttTOS      TWV     VTTOKpiTUiV     iv     TTj      TpLTY}     TO^Cl      KaTapL6fJiOVfX€VO<;.         DcmOStheneS' 

implication  was  merely  that  Aeschines  was  a  weak,  third-rate  performer, 
not  an  "actor  of  third  parts."  The  correctness  of  this  interpretation 
is  borne  out  by  the  further  assertion  of  Demosthenes  {De  jals.  leg.  247) 
that  Aeschines  played  the  part  of  Creon  in  the  Antigone.  On  the  basis 
of  this  statement,  critics^  have  in  almost  every  case  assigned  the  part 
of  Creon  to  the  tritagonist  as  "the  player  of  third-class  parts,"  although 
the  role  has  important  lyrical  parts,  and  to  the  modern  reader,  at  least, 
the  interest  centers  about  him  only  less  than  about  Antigone.  Shall 
we  say  with  Wilamowitz  Heracles'',  p.  150,  n.  60:  "Aber  was  ein  redner 
in  demosthenischer  zeit  sagt,  ist  iiberhaupt  unglaubwiirdig,  und  wenn 
vollends  der  hass  spricht,  wie  hier,  ist  die  liige  an  sich  wahrscheinlicher"  ? 
No.  Demosthenes  was  addressing  people  who  knew  the  facts  and  such 
a  malicious  misrepresentation  of  facts  would  not  have  gone  by  unchal- 
lenged. There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Aeschines  did  appear  in  the  role  of 
Creon  and  the  statement  De  cor.  180^  must  refer  to  some  special  occasion 
when  Aeschines  "murdered  wretchedly"  the  role  of  Creon.  Wilamowitz 
asserts  further  that  Aeschines  could  hardly  have  been  a  poor  actor,  and  that 
only  on  this  assumption  is  it  at  all  probable  that  he  took  the  part  of  Creon, 
inasmuch  as  the  latter  is  beyond  all  doubt  the  second  role  of  the  drama. 
In  view  of  the  seemingly  contradictory  evidence,  one  cannot  be  dogmatic 
on  the  question  of  Aeschines'  efficiency  as  an  actor,  but,  even  in  spite  of 
Demosthenes'  frequent  aspersions,  it  seems  very  probable  that  Aeschines 
was  naturally  well  adapted  to  the  stage.3  His  figure  was  handsome,  he 
possessed  a  fine  voice,  well  modulated  and  capable  of  great  variety,  and  a 
good  delivery.  It  is  reasonably  certain,  then,  that  Demosthenes  depreciates 
Aeschines'  ability  as  an  actor  to  the  point  of  exaggeration.  However,  the 
fact  remains  that  Aeschines  is  taunted  with  the  "butchering"  of  Creon's  part, 
which  must  be  the  second  part,  and  yet  in  the  same  speech  is  called  "tri- 
tagonist." The  two  statements  seem  contradictory,  but  the  solution  is 
apparent.  "Tritagonist"  could  be  applied  to  any  poor  or  third-rate  actor 
without  reference  to  the  roles  he  played.     A  tritagonist  was  not  necessarily 

^  Richter  loc.  cit.,  p.  105;  Hermann  loc.  ciL,  p.  27.     Frey  Fleckeis.  Jahrb.  CXVII 
(1878),  pp.  460  ff.,  however,  assigns  Creon's  part  to  the  protagonist. 

3  Blass  Att.  Bered.  III^,  p.  222,  n.  i.     See  Schafer  Dem.  u.  seine  Zeit  1^,  pp.  240-50, 
and  Volker  loc,  cit.,  pp.  197  ff. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA 


39 


an  actor  of  third  roles  or  role,  but  of  second  as  well.  Aeschines  was  tri- 
tagonist  in  that,  according  to  Demosthenes,  he  failed  to  make  a  success  of 
Creon's  part.'  If  custom  had  admitted  four  or  live  actors  upon  the  scene 
at  once,  Demosthenes  could  surely  have  called  Aeschines  "tetragonist"  or 
"pentagonist"  quite  as  truly. 

The  words  sometimes  had  a  different  meaning  in  the  period  of  the 
technitae  (infra,  p.  70,  (3)),  when  dramatic  companies,  under  the  supervision 
of  private  individuals  or  of  the  guilds,  traveled  over  all  parts  of  Greece  and 
gave  dramatic  exhibitions.  The  companies  of  this  period  commonly 
consisted  of  three  actors  and  under  this  regime  the  terms  "protagonist," 
"deuteragonist,"  "tritagonist"  might  well  have  been  applied  to  the  three 
actors  who  acted  all  the  roles  of  a  play.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  these 
terms  are  not  found  in  any  of  the  documents  or  inscriptions  of  dramatic 
contests  of  this  period,  o-waywvio-ri/s  is  the  regular  title  for  the  actor  who 
was  the  assistant  of  the  rpaywSos  or  KWfxw86<:,  the  leading  actor  and  manager 
of  the  company.  For  this  use  of  the  term  we  may  compare  BCH.  V,  p.  35 
(Mylasa) :  if^vijcrOrj  Evdv$r]s  Pou</)ov  Koi  twv  (TvvaywvKTTwv.^  The  editors 
of  the  inscription  plausibly  assume  that  this  Rufus  is  the  leading  actor 
of    the    troupe  and  that  oi    o-waywvio-Tat  were  the  subordinate  actors. 

1  Demosthenes  mentions  other  roles  played  by  Aeschines,  but  we  derive  no  definite 
information  from  them,  as  the  plays  are  no  longer  extant.  He  played  Cresphontes, 
the  title-role  of  a  play  of  Euripides,  and  Oinomaus,  the  title-role  of  Sophocles'  play. 
The  leading  part  in  the  Cresphontes  is  thought  to  be  Merope;  cf.  Schaier  loc.  cit.,  p.  243. 
We  do  not  know  what  the  leading  role  in  the  Oinomaus  was.  Grysar  loc.  cit.,  p.  29, 
thought  Pelops  to  be  the  leading  part ;  Schafer  loc.  cit.,  p.  248,  n.  i,  Hippodameia. 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Oinomaus  was  the  leading  character.  A  priori  the  title- 
role  is  likely  to  be  the  chief  one.  Besides  it  is  indicated  by  Hesychius  s.  OtV6/uaos: 
iirel  (card  tt)v  xwpac  irepivoaTCov  vweKplvero  (Aeschines)  '  ^o(poKX4ovs  rbv  Oivbfiaov. 
We  have  here  the  technical  expression  for  the  leading  actor.  Aeschines  played  also 
the  part  of  Thyestes  in  the  Cretan  Women,  and  Talthybius  and  Menelaus  in  Troades 
(Dem.  De  fals.  leg.  337:  bre  fiiv  tA  Qv^arov  Kal  tuv  iirl  Tpolq.  /ca/ccl  -fiyuvl^ero). 
Cf.  Schafer,  pp.  243,  244.  The  importance  of  the  roles  played  by  Aeschines  warrants 
the  conclusion  that  he  was  an  actor  of  much  talent. 

2  Cf.  Poland  loc.  cit.,  p.  xi.  The  phrase  rd  Koivbv  tQiv  <Tvvayo)via-TU)v  (CIG.  II. 
3068  B;  Liiders  85)  has  caused  much  discussion.  Bockh  thought  of  it  as  a  company 
of  actors  outside  the  guild  who  had  devoted  themselves  to  celebrating  games  at  home. 
Liiders  (p.  78)  sees  in  it  a  band  of  lesser  importance  joined  to  the  larger  college.  Foucart 
De  collegiis,  p.  8,  considers  it  a  body  of  actors  as  distinguished  from  other  members  of 
the  guild,  i.  e.,  musicians,  poets,  etc.  Reisch  De  mus.  certam.,  p.  105,  whom  Miiller 
{Buhnenalt.,  p.  395,  n.  4)  follows,  thinks  that  the  deuteragonist  and  tritagonist  were 
meant.  Poland,  however,  shows  that  the  word  is  such  that  it  need  not  have  the  same 
meaning  in  every  case.  Cf.  Papers  Amer.  School  III,  p.  167,  n.  275.  11  (Pisidia),  ^d;' 
evTvxMv  SoOXos  veiK-qaas,  tov  diixaTO%  rb  T^raprov  xwperi/  ets  toi)s  (Tvvayo}iii.(rras  aiirov. 


40  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

In  the  Delphic  inscriptions  BCH.  XVIII,  pp.  86  f.,  o-waywvto-Tr??  has  the 
same  meaning.  In  the  Ptolemaic  inscription  BCH.  IX,  p.  132.  38,  with 
one  T/jaywSos  are  joined  four  uwaywvio-Tai ;  in  a  Delphic  inscription 
{Eph.  Arch.  1883,  p.  161;  1884,  p.  218.  16)  one  o-waywvio-Ti^s  occurs 
(under  the  heading  o-waywvto-Tat ) ;  in  a  document  of  the  Tean  guild 
(Lebas  As.  Min.,  n.  281.  36;  Luders,  n.  91),  NtKoar/DaTos  o-waywvto-T^s 
T/aaytKos  is  mentioned  as  the  one  chosen  to  carry  the  decree  of  the  synod 
to  the  people  of  lasos.  Reisch  (p.  104),  Poland  (p.  11),  and  Miiller  (p.  395, 
n.  4)  are  agreed  that  avvaywyia-Tat  in  these  inscriptions  refer  to  the  deuter- 
agonist  and  tritagonist.  That  the  secondary  actors  of  the  companies  are 
meant  is  beyond  all  doubt.  The  significant  fact  is,  however,  that  the 
terms  "deuteragonist"  and  ''tritagonist"  are  never  fused  to  designate  the 
secondary  actors  of  a  troupe.'  These  actors  are  either  not  recorded  at  all, 
which  is  the  more  usual  method,  or  are  referred  to  as  a-waywvLo-Tai.^ 

The  terms  "protagonist,"  "deuteragonist,"  and  "tritagonist,"  so  far  as  we 
may  generaUze  from  scanty  evidence,  were  used  in  the  time  of  Demosthenes 
to  denote  merely  the  rank  or  class  of  an  actor.  Hence  it  is  not  strange  that 
a  name  for  an  actor  of  the  fourth  class  is  wanting.  "Third  class,"  com- 
monly speaking,  is  broad  enough  to  include  the  lowest  grade  of  an  actor, 
with  us  as  with  the  ancients;  we  never  speak  of  "fourth-rate"  actors.  In 
the  period  of  the  technitae  organizations  the  three  actors  of  a  traveling 
company  might  have  been  designated  by  these  titles,  but  there  is  no  proof 
that  such  was  the  case.  In  all  records  of  this  period  the  members  of  a 
company  are  referred  to  as  6  rpaywBos  (or  kw/xwSos)  koI  ol  crwaywvto-Tat. 

III.  A  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  THE  AESTHETIC  CANON  OF  ARIS- 
TOTLE AND  ECONOMIC  CONDITIONS  WHICH  DETERMINE  THE 
NUMBER  OF  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  AS  ACTORS  IN  A  PLAYt 

Aristotle's  information  relative  to  the  drama  was  derived  from  copies  of 
the  plays  extant  in  his  own  time,  and  from  observations  drawn  from  these 
were  formulated  his  aesthetic  laws.  An  application  of  his  artistic  rule  of 
three  actors  to  the  drama  will  illustrate  in  a  convincing  manner  the  truth 

1  One  exception  may  be  noticed  where  Demosthenes  {De  cor.   261)  says  that     ^/ 
Aeschines    irpiTayutvla-Tei    for   Simylus    and    Socrates,    i.e.,    "played   third   fiddle" 

to  them,  not  necessarily  the  least  important  roles.  It  is  quite  incredible  that  Aeschines 
should  have  played  third  parts  with  these  men,  who  were  proverbially  verj'  poor  actors.. 
Vit.  Aeschin.,  p.  11,  speaks  of  these  men  as  ol  kokoi  viroKptral ;  Dem.  De  cor.  261: 
oi  papvffTovot  iiriKoKo^nevoi  iKeivoi  viroKpiral.  Demosthenes  means  that  it  was  disgracefiil 
even  to  be  associated  with  these  "ranters."  • 

2  In  a  Delphic  decree  (end  I  cent.  b.  c),  Colin  BCH.  XXX  (1906),  p.  278,  six 
synagonists  are  associated  with  four  Kw/x(p8ol  and  seven  with  two  rpayifidoi. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  4I 

of  this  Statement.  In  the  thirty-three  extant  tragedies,  with  but  one  excep- 
tion,' there  is  no  scene  in  which  more  than  three  speaking  characters  take 
part  in  the  dialogue.  The  fourth  character  is  always  silent. ^  In  the 
Andromache,  Peleus,  Molossus,  Andromache,  and  Menelaus  are  on  the 
scene  at  once.  Molossus  observes  silence.  Ismene  is  not  allowed  to 
interpose  a  word  in  those  scenes  in  Oedipus  Coloneus  in  which  Oedipus, 
Antigone,  and  Theseus  are  the  interlocutors. 

Comedy  is  naturally  less  conventional  than  tragedy  and  should  not  be 
subjected  to  the  rigorous  test  of  any  law,  and  yet,  allowing  for  a  certain 
degree  of  flexibility  in  application,  comedy  also  conforms  to  a  very  great 
extent  to  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  tragedy.  It  is  comparatively  rare 
that  more  than  three  engage  in  the  dialogue  at  once.  Four^  comedies  may 
be  cited  where  four  characters  speak  together:  Ach.  (98-125),  Dicaeopolis, 
Herald,  Ambassador,  and  Pseudartabas ;  Av.  (1565-1693),  Poseidon, 
Heracles,  Peithetaerus,  Triballus;  Lysistrata  (78-253),  Lysistrata,  Calo- 
nice,  Myrrhina,  Lampito;  i^aw."*  (549-578),  Dionysus,  Xanthias,  Board- 
ing-house Keeper,  Plathane.  Pseudartabas  {Ach.)  speaks  two  verses, 
Triballus  {Av.)  four,  and  Dionysus  {Ran.)  interposes  only  one  verse. 
Lampito,  however,  plays  a  more  important  part.  Even  in  these  scenes, 
therefore,  there  is  no  serious  violation  of  the  Aristotelian  norm.  But  these 
are  the  exceptions.  The  artistic  law  is  commonly  observed.  For  example, 
in  Nuhes  889-1104,  where  Strepsiades,  Pheidippides,  and  two  orators  are 
present,  only  two  speak.  Only  after  the  departure  of  the  orators  do 
Strepsiades,  Pheidippides,  and  Socrates  resume  the  dialogue.  In  Pax 
1210  ff.  Trygaeus,  Crestmaker,  Spearmaker,  Breastplatemaker,  are  present, 
but  the  fourth  is  mute.  In  Lys.  1 216-41,  Athenian  B,  Athenian  A,  Spartan, 
Lysistrata  are  simultaneously  on  the  scene,  but  after  the  entrance  of 
Lysistrata  the  other  characters  become  silent.  The  same  situation  is 
found  in  Eccl.  1043-65,  where  Old  Woman  a,  Old  Woman  y8.  Youth,  and 
Maid  are  on  the  scene  together,  but  in  no  case  do  more  than  three  of  them 

1  Rhesus:  Diomedes,  Odysseus,  Athena,  and  Paris  are  together.  But  even  in 
this  scene  there  is  really  no  violation  of  the  aesthetic  rule.  There  is  no  intercourse 
between  Paris  and  Diomedes  and  Odysseus.  Paris  takes  no  notice  of  either  of  these 
persons.  During  the  whole  time  that  Paris  is  present  (642-67),  the  dialogue  is  carried 
on  by  him  and  Athena.  After  his  exit  the  dialogue  is  resumed  between  Athena,  Dio- 
medes, and  Odysseus. 

2  Diomedes  488  (Keil  I,  p.  491):   quia  quarta  persona  semper  muta. 

3  I  omit  the  scenes  like  the  assembly  scenes  in  the  Thesmophoriazusae,  where 
the  chorus-members  are  not  distinguishable  from  actors;  cf.  Capps  Stage  in  Gk. 
Theat.,  p.  29. 

4  In  the  last  scene  Euripides,  Aeschylus,  Dionysus,  Pluto  are  present. 


42 


RULE   OF  THREE   ACTORS 


speak.  We  may  affirm,  therefore,  that  Aristotle's  aesthetic  law  is,  with 
unimportant  exceptions,  in  harmony  with  the  plays. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  interpreted  as  an  economic  law,  it  is  violated  in 
almost  every  play  (infra,  A  and  B).  In  Choe.  889  ff.  four  persons  are  upon 
the  scene  within  five  verses.  Theseus'  part  in  O.  C.  must  be  divided  among 
three  actors.  Andr.  547-765  is  a  palpable  transgression  of  the  economic 
rule.  In  Ntih.  iio5ff.  Strepsiades,  Pheidippides,  and  Socrates  are  upon 
the  scene  immediately  after  the  exit  of  the  orators.  In  Vesp.  136-45 
Bdelycleon,  Philocleon,  Xanthias,  and  Sosias  each  requires  a  separate 
actor,  and  yet  but  three  are  present  at  once. 

There  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  aesthetic  law,  which  is 
concerned  with  the  number  of  persons  who  may  speak  together  in  the  same 
scene,  and  the  operation  of  economic  conditions,  which  alone  determined 
the  number  of  performers  used  in  a  play.  The  three-actor  law  has  to  do 
only  with  the  aesthetic  side;  it  has  no  application,  so  far  as  ancient 
authorities  inform  us,  to  the  economic  side. 


IV.— OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  LAW  AS  USUALLY  APPLIED 

A.  Sometimes  more  than  three  actors  are  required. — The  following  table 
contains  all  scenes  of  the  plays  in  which  four  speaking  characters  take  active 
part  in  the  dialogue  at  once,  or  where  the  fourth,  though  a  speaking  char- 
acter, is  silent,  or,  finally,  those  instances  where  four  or  more  speaking 
persons  are  together  upon  the  scene  within  the  space  of  five  verses.  I  use 
the  term  "Actor  I,"  "Actor  II,"  etc.,  without  reference  to  the  "class"  of 
the  actor,  but  merely  as  matter  of  convenience. 


Play 

Actor  I 

Actor  II 

Actor  III 

Actor  IV 

Actor  V 

Choe.  886-91 

Orestes 

Clytaemestra 

Exangelus 

Pylades 

Andr.  547-765 

Andromache 

Peleus 

Menelaus 

Molossus 

Rhes.  642-67 

Odysseus 

Diomedes 

Athena 

Paris 

~Ach.  98-125 

Dicaeopolis 

Herald 

Ambassador 

Pseudartabas 

Ach.  1068-72 

Dicaeopolis 

Messenger 

Lamachus 

Paranymph 

Nub.  1104-1105  .... 

Strepsiades 

Pheidippides 

Just  Orator 

Unjust  Orator 

Socrates 

Pax  1210-40  

Trygaeus 

Scythemaker 

Crestmaker 

Spearmaker 

Breastplate- 
maker 

Aves  1579-1693 

Poseidon 

Heracles 

Triballus 

Peithetaerus 

Lys.  78-253 

Lvsistrata 

Calonice 

M\Trhina 

Lampito 

Lys.  431-613 

Lysistrata 

Proboulus 

Old  Woman  A 

Old  Woman  B 

Old  Woman  C 

Lys.  742-80 

Lysistrata 

Woman  A 

Woman  B 

Woman  C 

Lys.  1273-1321 

Lysistrata 

Athenian  Am- 

Athenian Am- 

Spartan Am- 

bassador A 

bassador  B 

bassador 

Thes.  371-466 

Heraldess 

Micca 

Woman  B 

Kedestes 

Ran.  549-78 

Dionysus 

Xanthias 

Boarding-house 
Keeper 

Plathane 

Ran.  1411-1533 

Dionvsus 

Aeschylus 

Euripides 

Pluto 

Eccl.  1042-65 

Old  Woman  B 

Old  Woman  C 

Young  Woman 

Youth 

IN    CLASSICAL   GREEK   DRAMA  43 

Choephori. — The  Exangelus  leaves  Clytaemestra  upon  the  scene  at  886.  She 
is  alone  886-91.  Orestes'  and  Pylades  enter  892.  The  brief  interval  between 
the  exit  of  the  Exangelus  (886)  and  the  entrance  of  Orestes  and  Pylades  (892) 
preclude  the  possibility  of  the  Exangelus  changing  costume  and  reappearing  in  the 
character  of  Pylades  or  Orestes. 

Andromache. — Peleus  enters  547  upon  a  scene  in  which  Andromache,  Mene- 
laus,  and  Molossus  are  engaged  in  the  dialogue.  Molossus,  however,  observes 
strict  silence  at  the  entrance  of  Peleus.^  The  part  of  Molossus  was  most  probably 
taken  by  a  boy.  Boys  appear  on  the  modern  stage,  often  to  great  effect,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  they  might  not  have  appeared  in  ancient  times.  The 
assumption  that  they  did  not  implies  that  Athens  possessed  no  youth  capable  of 
rendering  such  parts.  This  is  a  priori  improbable  and  is  further  inconsistent  with 
other  evidence.  The  frequent  competitions  of  boy-choruses  at  Athens  and  at 
other  festivals  tend  against  the  assumption  that  boys  were  excluded  from  taking 
part  in  dramatic  exhibitions.  ^ 

Rhesus. — As  indicated  in  the  table  Odysseus,  Diomedes,  Athene,  and  Paris, 
all  speaking  characters,  are  simultaneously  upon  the  scene  and  all  speak  during 
the  course  of  the  scene  {supra,  p.  41,  n.  i).  This  exceptional  situation  is  probably 
due  to  the  late  date  of  the  play."*  The  aesthetic  law  that  not  more  than  three 
shall  speak  in  one  scene  is  not  so  rigorously  observed  as  in  the  fifth  century. 

1  I  assume  with  Richter  Verteil  d.  Rollen,  p.  39,  that  Pylades  is  the  ever-present 
companion  of  Orestes  and  enters  with  him  892.  But  for  a  full  discussion  of  this  passage 
see  Class.  Phil.  II  (1907),  p.  387,  n.  i. 

2  The  silence  of  Molossus  can  be  due  only  to  artistic  reasons.  Devrient  Das 
Kind  auf  d.  ant.  BUhne,  p.  8  (Weimar,  1904),  thinks  that  the  silence  of  Molossus  in 
that  scene  indicates  that  the  "  tritagonist, "  who  in  this  scene  comes  forward  in  the  char- 
acter of  Peleus,  had  formerly  stood  behind  the  scene  and  sang  or  spoke  the  words  of 
Molossus,  while  Molossus  acted  the  part  upon  the  scene.  Thus  at  the  entrance  of 
Peleus  Molossus  cannot  speak! 

3  Richter  loc.  cit.,  p.  65,  holds  that  for  the  part  of  Molossus  may  have  been  used 
"ein  Erwachsener,  jedenfalls  aber  nur  ein  kleiner,  zwergartiger  Schauspieler,  wenn 
wir  nicht  ganz  in's  Unnatiirliche  gerathen  sollen."  Beer  Zahl  d.  Schausp.,  p.  15,  shows 
the  absurdity  of  a  chorus-member  singing  the  part  behind  the  scene,  as  assumed  by 
Miiller  Litt.  Gesch.  II,  p.  146.  On  the  question  of  children  roles  in  the  Greek  drama 
see  Haym  Diss.  Halen.  XIII  (1897),  pp.  217  £f. 

4  Since  Valckanaer's  Diatribe  iji  Eur.  fragg.  (sec.  88,  p.  85  of  the  Glasgow  Euripides, 
Vol.  I),  the  Rhesus  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  a  ivcent.  production;  Wilamowitz 
Heracles  I,  p.  130,  suggests  370-80  as  a  probable  date.  Capps  Am.  Jour.  Arch.  X 
(1895),  pp.  295  f.,  finds  in  the  external  characteristics  of  the  chorus  an  indication  that 
the  play  is  late.  Cf.  Rolfe  Harv.  Stud.  IV  (1893),  pp.  61  ff.,  for  the  literature  on  the 
subject.  G.  Hermann  Opusc.  Ill,  p.  284,  to  avoid  the  difficulty  of  a  four-actor  scene, 
conjectures  that  the  departure  of  Odysseus  627  had  already  given  the  same  actor  oppor- 
tunity for  assuming  the  role  of  Paris.  But  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  never  leave  the 
scene,  as  668  shows,  um^s,  kt\.;  cf.  also  673;  rl  /uAXere;  is  addressed  to  Odysseus 
and  Diomedes.     Vater  Rhesus,  p.  53  (Berlin  1837),  regards  Paris,  Dolon,  and  Athene 


44  RULE   OF  THREE   ACTORS 

Acharnienses. —g2>-\2$ :  Dicaeopolis,  Herald,  Ambassador,  and  Pseudar- 
tabas  speak  together;   1068-1072:   Paranymph  departs  1068,  Dicaeopolis  remains  ■ 

upon  the  scene.     The  Herald  re-enters  1071,  followed  by  Lamachus  10^2.     The  7 

short  interval  between  the  exit  of  the  Paranymph  1068  and  the  entrance  of  the 
Herald  1071  and  Lamachus  1072,  viz.,  three  and  four  verses  respectively,  makes 
a  different  actor  necessary  for  each  of  these  parts. 

Nubes.—l  follow  Van  Leeuwen'  in  the  assimiption  that  the  contest  between 
the  Just  and  Unjust  Orators  (888-1104)  took  place  in  the  presence  of  Strepsiades 
and  Pheidippides.  The  Orators  depart  1104;  Strepsiades  and  Pheidippides 
remain.  Socrates  re-enters  1105.  There  is  no  good  evidence  for  a  choral  ode 
between  the  exit  of  the  Orators  and  the  entrance  of  Socrates.^  Five  actors  are 
necessary,  therefore,  for  these  five  characters. 

Pax. — 1210-40:  Trygaeus  and  the  Scythemaker  engage  in  dialogue  up  to 
1209,  at  which  point  Scythemaker  departs  1210.  Trygaeus,  Crestmaker,  Spear- 
maker,  and  Breastplatemaker  are  present,  as  the  words  of  the  Crestmaker  12 13 
show.  The  Breastplatemaker  and  Spearmaker  were  present  throughout  the 
scene,  though  the  Breastplatemaker  does  not  speak  until  1224  and  the  Spear- 
maker until  1255. 

Aves. — 1579-1695:  Poseidon,  Heracles,  Peithetaerus,  and  Triballus  speak 
together. 

all  as  "  parachoregemata "  (personae  supererogatiae).  Hermann  De  distrib.,  p.  63, 
says:  poetaster  ille  praeter  omnem  necessitatem  quatuor  simul  histriones  iniscaenam 
produxit.  This  happens,  according  to  Hermann,  because  the  author  did  not  intend 
the  play  for  production. 

1  Nub.,  p.  2,  n.  I.  He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  contest  woxold  be  pointless 
if  Strepsiades  and  Pheidippides  were  not  present. 

2  Van  Leeuwen  ad  v.  888.     At  the  exit  of  Socrates  in  ^86,  R  and  Cant.  2  have         §  '  P,' 
XopoO,  which  indicates  that  a  choral  ode  intervened  between  the  exit  of  Socrates  and 

the  entrance  of  the  two  Orators.     The  scholiast's  comment  indicates  that  the  ode  was 
wanting  in  antiquity.     Whether  Aristophanes  ever  wrote  an  ode  at  this  point  is  uncer- 
tain.    Brunck  held  that  the  ode  had  dropped  out  by  the  fault  of  some  copyist.     G. 
Hermann,  Blaydes,  Teuffel  saw  in  the  lack  of  an  ode  an  indication  that  the  second 
edition  of  the  Clouds  was  never  completed.     At  any  rate  Hermann  and  Blaydes  are  of 
the  opinion  that  there  was  some  kind  of  a  pause  here,  for  the  same  actors  who  played 
Socrates  and  Strepsiades  take  the  part  of  the  two  Orators.    Westphal  argues  for  a  short 
choral  ode,  or  a  few  anapaests  by  the  coryphaeus  to  exhort  Pheidippides,  to  give  the 
actor  of  Socrates  time  to  change  dress  and  appear  as  one  of  the  Orators.     This  argu- 
ment is  of  no  weight  unless  we  assume  that  an  ode  intervened  also  after  1104  between 
the  exit  of  the  Orators  and  the  entrance  of  Socrates,  and  there  is  not  the  sHghtest  prob- 
ability that  such  was  the  case  according  to  Van  Leeuwen.     The  main  argument  adduced     r.<!'<U^M^ 
to  prove  that  this  edition  of  the  Clouds  was  not  produced  and  is  in  an  unfinished  con-H       T^^a4u 
dition  is  the  fact  that  five  actors  are  necessary  for  its  presentation.     This  would  be  a  ^^jC^,^.^^  I'l- 
cogent  argument  if  the  Clouds  were  the  only  comedy  that  demands  more  than  three      -.tW<0 
actors.     Cf.  Beer  loc.  cit.,  pp.  114-38,  for  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  Clouds  in  its 
present  condition  relative  to  the  number  of  actors  employed. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA 


45 


Lysistrata. — 78-252:  Lysistrata,  Calonice,  Myrrhina,  and  Lampito,  all 
prominent  speaking  characters,  are  present  upon  the  scene;  431-613:  Lysistrata, 
Proboulus,  Old  Woman  A,  Old  Woman  B,  and  Old  Woman  C.  Old  Woman  C 
speaks  two  verses  (447  f.).  Old  Woman  A  and  Old  Woman  B  are  more  impwrtant 
characters,  and  though  Lysistrata  and  the  Proboulus  are  the  chief  interlocutors, 
still  these  old  women  are  by  no  means  out  of  the  action;  742-80:  Lysistrata, 
Woman  A,  Woman  B,  Woman  C  are  present;  Woman  B  is  silent  in  this  scene, 
but  speaks  in  the  preceding  scene;  1273-132 1:  Athenian  Ambassador  A,  Athen- 
ian B  are  the  interlocutors  in  1216-41,  in  1242-99  the  Athenian  Ambassador, 
Spartan  Ambassador,  and  Athenian  Ambassador  B  (mute)  are  together.  Lysi- 
strata enters  1300.  There  are,  therefore,  four  speaking  characters  present  at  once 
though  only  Lysistrata  speaks;  the  three  Ambassadors  are  silent  after  the  entrance 
of  Lysistrata. 

Thesmophoriazusae. — 371-465:"  Heraldess,  Micca,  Woman  B,  and  Kedestes 
are  together  in  an  assembly  scene;  the  Heraldess  speaks  372-80,  Micca  383-432, 
Woman  B  443-58.  In  466  the  Kedestes,  who  up  to  this  point  has  been  mute, 
begins  to  address  the  assembly  in  the  voice  of  a  woman. 

Ranae. — v549-78:  Dionysus,  Xanthias,  Boarding-house  Keeper,  and  Plathane 
carry  on  the  dialogue.  Dionysus,  however,  speaks  but  two  verses  while  the  women 
are  present. 

Ecdesiazusae. — 1037-65:  Old  Woman  B,  Old  Woman  C,  Young  Woman, 
and  Youth  appear  together.  Old  Woman  C  enters  1065.  Young  Woman  has 
been  present  since  1037. 

B.  Four  actors  are  necessary;  otherwise  split  rdles. — The  dramas  in  which 
the  objectionable  device  of  split  roles  must  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  avoid  the 


Play 


Oedipus  Coloneus: 

33-88 

551-667 

721-886 

887-1043 

1669-1777. . . . 


Plutus: 

58-256.. 
641-770. 


771-801. . 

Equites: 

15-155-.  • 

235-46... 

997-1255- 

1255-63- ■ 
Fe5/>ae.• 

1-142. . . . 

144-403.. 

456-60    . 


Actor  I 


Oedipus 


Theseus 

Chremylus 


Chremylus 
Sausage  Seller 


Xanthias 
Philocleon 


Actor  II 


Antigone 


Theseus 

Antigone 


Carion 


Plutus 


Servant  A 
Paphlagonian 


Bdelycleon 


Actor  III 


Ismene 

Theseus 

Creon 


Ismene 


Plutus 

Wife  of  Chremy- 
lus 


Servant  B 
Servant  B 

Demus 


Sosias 


Actor  IV 


Servant  B 


Xanthias 


'  If  the  part  of  the  Priestess  in  295-371  is  not  taken  by  the  coryphaeus,  five  actors 
are  required  for  this  scene,  i.  e.,  for  Heraldess,  Kedestes,  Micca,  Woman  B,  and 
Priestess. 


46  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

admission  of  a  fourth  actor  are  collected  in  the  preceding  table.  The  char- 
acters in  bold-faced  type  are  those  whose  parts  must  be  divided  as  shown  in  the 
diagram;  the  dash  indicates  that  the  character  above  it  is  not  on  the  scene;  the 
dots  =  ditto  marks. 

Oepidus  Coloneus. — The  part  of  Theseus  must  be  divided  among  three  actors 
in  any  three-actor  distribution,  unless  the  situation  be  further  complicated  by 
splitting  the  part,  of  Ismene  and  Antigone.  Miiller  Litt.  Gesch.  II,  p.  56,  was  the 
first  to  call  attention  to  the  necessity  of  dividing  Theseus'  part  in  this  play,  and 
to  the  extreme  impropriety  of  dividing  roles  in  general.  It  is  quite  impossible 
for  two  actors  to  play  the  same  role  in  the  same  manner,  spirit,  and  with  a  like 
voice.  It  is,  furthermore,  unlikely  that  the  three  actors  were  of  the  same  size. 
The  frequent  appearance  of  Theseus  adds  to  the  difficulties  of  assuming  that 
he  was  impersonated  each  time  by  a  different  actor.  The  spectator's  conception 
of  Bang  Theseus  would  have  been  seriously  marred  at  the  conclusion  of  the  per- 
formance if  three  actors  of  different  statures,  of  unlike  temperaments  and  manner- 
isms, and  of  unlike  voices  had  attempted  to  interpret  the  part.  That  such  a 
practice  would  have  been  vmdersirable  no  one  will  deny,  and  it  is  reasonably  cer- 
tain that  such  an  artificial  device  would  not  have  foiind  favor  under  the  Athenian 
system  of  stage  management  where  the  matter  of  expense  was  not  an  important 
consideration.' 

Plutus. — Actor  III  plays  the  role  of  Plutus  58-229,  but  in  771-801  only  actor 
II  is  available  for  the  part.^  Hence  the  necessity  of  dividing  the  role  between  two 
actors. 

Equites. — The  role  of  Servant  B  must  have  been  divided  between  one  of  the 
regular  actors  and  a  supernumerary.  In  15-155  and  in  235-46  Actor  III  is 
available  for  Servant  B,  but  in  977-1263  the  three  actors  are  employed  for  the 

1  In  spite  of  the  serious  objections  to  the  practice,  many  scholars  insist  on  dividing 
parts  wherever  the  three-actor  distribution  demands  it.  C.  F.  Hermann  makes  much 
of  the  relative  difference  in  the  capacity  of  the  three  actors,  and  yet  he  expects,  appar- 
ently, these  three  actors  to  play  the  same  role  in  the  same  manner.  C.  F.  Hermann 
praises  O.  Miiller  for  discovering  that  Theseus'  part  must  be  divided  or  else  a  fourth 
actor  introduced.  However,  since  in  no  scene  of  the  play  do  more  than  three  characters 
appear,  he  favors  the  division  of  the  part.  So  Jebb  {Oed.  Col.,  p.  7)  thinks  that 
Miiller  exaggerates  the  objections  to  split  roles.  Croiset  Hist.  litt.  grec.  III^,  p.  246, 
n.  I,  suggests  that  the  character  of  Theseus  is  rather  impersonal,  his  character  is  not 
keenly  delineated,  and  that  there  is  little  psychology  in  the  part,  making  the  doubling 
less  objectionable,  in  his  opinion.  Richter  (p.  51),  Lachmann  (p.  45),  Miiller  {LiU. 
Gesch.  I,  p.  403)  assume  a  fourth  actor  for  the  part. 

2  Beer  (p.  102)  has  Actor  II  play  the  role  of  Plutus  in  771-801,  assigning  it  in  58-229 
to  Actor  III.  There  is  another  possibility.  One  actor  may  play  Plutus'  role  through- 
out. In  that  case  the  part  of  Wife  of  Chremylus  must  be  played  by  Actor  I  in  641-770 
and  by  Actor  II  in  771-801.  Van  Leeuwen  remarks  a  propos  of  the  latter  possibility: 
quae  mihi  quidem  nimis  artificiosa  videtur  ratio.  He  therefore  allows  a  fourth  actor 
for  Wife  of  Chremylus. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  47 

Demus,  Sausage-Seller,  and  Paphlagonian.  For  Servant  B,  who  is  also  present 
with  these  three  characters  and  who  speaks  1254-56,'  a  fourth  person  must  be 
employed,  thus  necessitating  the  division  of  the  Servant's  role  between  Actor  III, 
who  is  now  present  in  the  character  of  the  Demus,  and  an  extra  person.  Since 
a  fourth  actor  is  necessary  in  any  case,  why  should  not  the  difficulty  be  avoided 
by  allowing  the  same  actor  to  play  the  part  of  Servant  B  throughout  ?  It  is 
ridiculous  to  suppose  that  a  fourth  efficient  actor  could  not  have  been  found  for 
the  role.  Athens  was  certainly  full  of  young  and  aspiring  apprentices  in  the 
actors'  profession  who  were  capable  of  acting  the  part  of  Servant  B  or  of  the 
Demus,  or  any  part  of  like  importance.  The  difference  in  the  matter  of  expense 
would  have  been  insignificant.  The  division  of  Servant  B's  role  seems  to  me, 
therefore,  to  be  unreasonable  and  unnecessary. 

Vespae. — The  case  in  the  Wasps  is  quite  analogous  to  the  one  just  mentioned 
in  the  Knights.  Actor  I  is  used  for  Xanthias  1-142,  but  from  144  the  same  actor 
impersonates  Philocleon.  Hence  456-60,  when  Xanthias  is  present  with  Philo- 
cleon,  Bdelycleon,  and  Sosias,  his  part  must  be  assigned  to  a  supernumerary.^ 

The  plays  show  us  several  instances  where  a  character  takes  an  active 
speaking  part  in  one  or  more  episodes,  but  observes  strict  silence  in  others. 
The  silence  of  characters  in  Aeschylus'  early  plays  has  been  shown^  to  be 
due  to  the  material  conditions  of  the  primitive  theatre,  chiefly  the  lack  of  a 
back-scene  which  characters  might  use  freely  for  coming  and  going.  At  a 
later  time,  however,  when  a  conventional  background,  temple  or  palace, 
was  provided,  the  poet  had  no  such  material  difficulties  to  contend  with.  A 
character  could  retire  to  the  temple  or  palace  on  the  slightest  pretext. 
The  silence  of  a  character  in  the  developed  drama,  therefore,  was  not  due 
to  material  or  economic  causes,  but  to  an  artistic  consideration.  The  poet 
did  not  choose  to  have  the  character  speak.  However,  such  parts  are 
invariably  divided  by  modern  critics  between  one  of  the  regular  actors  and 
a  mute.  The  division  of  a  part  in  this  case  presents  no  serious  obstacle, 
but  it  is  always  desirable  that  the  same  actor  should  play  a  given  role  through- 
out. That  a  character  is  mute  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  is  idle. 
The  facial  expression  of  Ismene  and  Tecmessa  was  probably  very  effective 
when  they  were  not  speaking.  The  spectator  would  certainly  detect  the 
splitting  of  a  role,  especially  the  judges  and  other  prominent  officials  who 
sat  nearest  the  orchestra.     The  consciousness  that  the  same  character 

1  R  A  give  these  verses  to  Servant  B  (Demos.),  R  to  Demus,  other  MSS  to  the 
coryphaeus.  Van  Leeuwen  ad  v.  1256  points  out  that  these  verses  are  appropriate 
only  in  the  mouth  of  Servant  B. 

2  v.  456:  Trate  ira?',  <3  'S.avdla,  rovs  <7<pT}Kas  onrb  rfji  oiKias.  Sac:  dXXd  dpQ  tovt\ 
Cf.  Van  Leeuwen  ad.  v.  457. 

3  Dignan  Idle  Actor  in  Aeschylus,  Chicago,  1905. 


48  RULE    OF   THREE   ACTORS 

was  being  carried  by  different  actors  would  detract  from  the  effect  and  tend 
to  destroy  the  illusion. 

Oedipus  Coloneus. — In  1096-1555  Ismene  is  silent,  since  three  speaking  persons 
were  already  engaged,  viz.  Oedipus,  Antigone,  Theseus  (1096-1210),  Oedipus, 
Antigone,  Polyneices  (1249-1446),  and  Oedipus,  Antigone,  Theseus  (1486-1555). 
She  is  a  speaking  character,  however,  in  324-509  and  1670-1779.  The  lack  of  a 
fourth  performer,  assuming  that  Theseus'  part  was  split,  would  necessitate  the 
division  of  Ismene's  part  between  one  of  the  regular  actors  and  a  "superntunerary  " 
who  was  a  "mute."  The  silence  of  Ismene  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  poet's 
unwillingness  or  inability  to  employ  effectively  more  than  three  persons  at  once. 
Dignan  well  observes  that  the  scenery  of  the  Oedipus  Coloneus  reproduces  the 
conditions  of  the  primitive  theatre,  in  that  there  is  no  back -scene  available  for 
exits  and  entrances. 

Orestes. — In  1554-1625  Electra  (mute),  Hermione  (mute),  Orestes,  Menelaus, 
and  Pylades  (mute),  are  present;  in  1625-93  Orestes,  Menelaus,  and  Apollo  are 
together  upon  the  scene.  Electra,  Hermione,  and  Pylades,  who  were  speaking 
characters  in  the  first  part  of  the  play,  would  now  be  taken  by  mutes  if  the  three- 
actor  rule  applies.  The  three  regular  actors  are  present  in  the  character  of 
Orestes,  Menelaus,  and  Apollo. 

Iphigeneia  in  Tauris. — Iphigeneia  and  Thoas  are  engaged  in  a  dialogue  when 
Orestes  and  Pylades  enter  (cf.  1222)  and  both  are  silent  throughout  the  scene, 
though  important  speaking  characters  in  preceding  episodes.  Mutes  are  assumed 
for  both  parts  in  this  scene.  It  is  obvious  that  in  this  case  at  least  the  silence  of 
Orestes  or  Pylades  could  not  be  due  to  the  scarcity  of  actors;  at  least  one  of  them 
might  have  spoken,  since  only  two  of  the  regular  actors  were  engaged.  The 
fondness  of  Euripides  for  the  two-actor  dialogue  has  been  observed  by  all  students 
of  this  author  {supra,  p.  30).  In  many  cases  the  silence  of  the  third  person  has 
no  special  significance.  In  other  cases  he  aims  at  an  artistic  effect,  as  perhaps 
in  the  scene  under  discussion.' 

Ajax. — Tecmessa  is  a  speaking  character  up  to  977.  Later,  1168,  she  reap- 
pears with  her  son  but  does  not  speak.  The  three  regular  actors  are  busy  with 
the  characters  of  Agamemnon,  Teucer,  and  Odysseus.  An  extra  person  is  com- 
monly assumed  for  Tecmessa,  thus  dividing  the  part  between  a  regular  actor  and 
a  supernumerary. 

C.  Parts  are  overloaded. — It  has  always  been  a  principle  with  those 

who  have  made  a  distribution  of  the  parts  among  the  actors  to  give  to  each 

I  The  obstinate  silence  of  Alcestis  on  her  return  from  the  tomb  has  been  a  puzzle 
to  many.  Elmsley  {Class.  Jour.  VIII  [181 3],  p.  434)  attributed  her  silence  to  the  lack 
of  a  third  actor  for  adult  roles.  But  a  more  plausible  explanation  is  that  Euripides 
had  a  special  artistic  motive  in  not  allowing  Alcestis  to  speak.  Her  very  silence  spoke 
in  condemnation  of  Admetus.  She  could  not  throw  her  arms  about  his  neck  and  say 
how  happy  she  was  to  be  restored  to  him,  nor  was  the  occasion  appropriate ;  nor  would 
it  have  been  consistent  with  the  character  of  Alcestis  to  have  upbraided  him.  The 
excuse  which  Heracles  gives  (1144)  is  but  a  cloak  to  hide  the  poet's  real  motive. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA 


49 


actor  as  far  as  possible  an  equal  share  of  the  burden.  Wilamowitz  {Her- 
acles I',  pp.  380  £f.)  sees  in  certain  plays  a  conscious  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  poet  to  shift  the  burden  of  the  roles  equally  upon  all  the  actors,  to 
make  them  as  uniform  as  possible  (gleichmassige  Belastigung  der  Rollen). 
A  poet  would  certainly  have  an  eye  to  such  an  important  consideration  if  he 
were  composing  for  a  fixed  number  of  performers,  but  when  we  find  this 
"equal  burdening"  of  parts  exceptional,  rather  than  normal,  the  question 
may  be  justly  raised  whether  the  poet  himself  was  conscious  of  any  such 
practical  restriction,  especially  since  we  find  many  plays  in  which  parts  are 
overloaded,  in  the  usual  distribution,  beyond  all  due  proportion. 

The  combinations  of  roles  given  in  the  table  below  are  those  which  we 
are  required  by  the  economy  of  the  plays  to  assign  to  each  single  actor. 
Where  a  choice  exists  I  have  indicated  it  by  a  note.  "Actor  I "  and  "Actor 
II,"  etc.,  are  used  for  "protagonist"  and  " deuteragonist "  in  the  sense 
usually  attributed  to  these  terms.  The  numbers  following  the  name  of 
the  character  indicate  the  number  of  verses  given  to  the  character. 


i? 

in 

1^ 

Actor 

Play 

Roles 

<3 

> 

i2  0 

Pi 

-a 

ll 

i 

e2 

^0 

I 

Track. 

Deianeira37o;  Heracles  206. 

2 

576 

492 

I 

m 

Oed.  Col* 
Phoen. 

Oedipus  600;   Messenger  87;  Theseus  17. 

Oedipus  78;  Eteoclesi2i;  MenoeceusaS;  Messenger  298; 

3 

700 

693 

Pedagogue  50. 

5 

585 

900 

Oedipus  78;  Polyneices  136;  Teiresias  98;  Pedagogue  50 

Messenger  298. 

s 

660 

825 

Ill 

Elec.  (Eur.) 

Peasant  90;  Clvtaemestra  75;  Old  Man  84;  Messenger  91; 

Castor  or  Pollux  86. 

s 

426 

684 

Ill 

Oed.  Col. 

Ismene  69;    Theseus  105;    Creon  91;    Polyneices  122; 

Stranger  32. 

s 

419 

974 

m 

loni 

Hermes  81;    Xuthus  72;    Pedagogue  132;    Servant  114; 

Pythia  32;   Athena  56. 

6 

487 

840 

m 

Oresl. 

Tyndareus  87;    Apollo    51;     Helena   39;     Pylades    112; 

Hermione  11;   Phrygian  140. 

6 

440 

in 

Agam.  t 

Guard  39;  Herald  126;  Aegisthus  64;  Agamemnon  82. 

4 

311 

658 

n 

Aves 

Euelpides  164;   Poet  32;   Meton  18;   Heracles  30;    Mes- 
senger 50;   Herald  35;   Cinesias  13;   Prometheus  33; 

Legislator  7. 

9 

382 

Ill 

Aves 

Epops  148;  Servant  of  Epops  15;  Priest  15;  Guard  14; 
Seer  17;   Inspector  8;    Iris  22;   Parricide  11;    Syco- 

phant 26;    Poseidon  37. 

10 

313 

I 

Eccl. 

Praxagora  315;   Chremes  73;   Man  A  54;   Old  Woman  A 

85;   Old  Woman  B  10;   Servant  31. 

6 

568 

S17 

*  I  assume  provisionally  that  Theseus'  part  was  split,  thus  giving  95  verses  to  the  protagonist  and 
deuteragonist. 

tBy  giving  to  the  protagonist  the  part  of  the  Servant,  i.  e..  115  vss.  we  might  relieve  Actor  III,  but 
would  overload  the  part  of  Ion,  which  alone  comprises  467  vss.  The  above  distribution  is  the  one  pre- 
ferred by  Hermann,  p.  48,  and  Richter,  p.  69. 

J  This  assignment  is  not  the  only  possible  one,  but  seems  the  least  objectionable. 


50  RULE   OF   THREE    ACTORS 

The  first  two  cases  in  the  table  deserve  special  attention.  In  both 
Trachiniae  and  Oedipus  Coloneus  the  first  actor ^  plays  roles  which  exceed 
in  the  actual  number  of  verses  the  combined  parts  of  the  other  actors,  an 
arrangement  that  no  poet  would  have  made  were  he  composing  for  three 
actors.  It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  that  the  large  majority  of  overbur- 
dened parts  fall  to  the  actor  of  third  parts,  the  so-called  tritagonist.  This 
has  a  special  significance,  for  it  is  least  to  be  desired  that  the  worst  per- 
former should  bear  the  hardest  burden  of  the  performance.  The  roles 
taken  separately  may  not  be  either  diflficult  or  important,  but  when  five  or 
six  minor  parts  are  shifted  upon  a  relatively  poor  actor,  almost  half  the 
play  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  one  actor,  and  that  the  least  competent  and 
capable  of  rendering  these  roles  with  efliciency.  The  general  effect  of  the 
play  could  thus  not  have  been  satisfying.  If,  however,  the  actors  were 
equally  versatile,  then  no  part  should  be  unduly  heavy. 

D.  Awkward  situations  caused  by  a  '^ lightning^'  change  0}  dress. — The 
actual  time  required  for  an  actor  to  retire,  change  costume,  and  reappear 
depends  upon  the  situation  of  the  dressing-room  with  reference  to  the 
orchestra,  upon  the  difference  of  dress  required  by  the  two  characters,  and 
finally  upon  the  actor's  costume  in  general.  In  the  early  fifth  century  the 
dressing-room  was  probably  at  some  distance  from  the  orchestra. ^  It 
would  also  require  an  actor  a  longer  time  to  change  from  a  female  character 
to  that  of  male,  or  vice  versa,  than  to  change  from  one  male  character  to 
another.  The  extent  of  the  change  is  much  greater  in  the  former  case. 3 
Further,  if  the  Greek  actors  wore  full  masks,'*  the  time  to  change  this  part 

1  Since  a  prize  was  offered  for  the  best  protagonist,  it  was  to  his  interest  at  least 
to  keep  his  owoa  roles  within  reasonable  and  appropriate  limits.  The  protagonist  (and 
in  most  cases  his  wishes  and  interests  were  doubtless  consulted  by  the  didascalus,  whose 
success  with  his  play  was  largely  dependent  upon  his  chief  actor's  hearty  co-operation) 
would  see  to  it  that,  if  he  was  a  accept  more  than  a  single  role,  the  other  roles  were 
light  and  adapted  to  display  to  advantage  his  strongest  characteristics. 

2  In  the  theatre  at  Thoricus  a  building  at  one  side  of  the  orchestra  is  thought  to 
have  been  the  actor's  dressing-room.  The  distance  of  this  room  from  the  theatre 
would  materially  affect  the  time  required  for  a  change  of  dress.  Cf.  Dorpfeld-Reisch 
Gr.  Theat.,  p.  iii. 

3  To  assume  the  elaborate  costume  of  the  Persian  Ambassador  or  of  Pseudartabas 
in  the  Acharnians  would  require  more  than  twice  the  time  needed  for  changing  the 
ordinary  costume. 

4  The  question  is  a  very  difl&cult  one.  It  seems  hardly  credible  that  a  stiff,  expres- 
sionless mask  could  have  been  used  in  the  classical  period;  there  was  no  name  for  a 
mask  until  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  The  facial  expression  which  to 
the  modem  actor  is  the  most  effective  instrument  of  power  would  be  entirely  lost  by 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  51 

of  the  make-up  would  be  insignificant,  but  if  the  actor  wore  a  wig,  nose, 
and  a  "make-up"  in  general  comparable  to  that  of  a  modern  actor, 
obviously  the  time  required  for  a  change  would  be  more  than  doubled. 
Elmsley  concluded  from  a  scene  in  the  Choephori,  where  thirteen  verses 
(886-899  ?)  are  interposed  between  two  speeches  spoken  by  the  same  actor 
in  two  different  characters,  that  twelve  or  fifteen  trimeters  allowed  an 
actor  time  for  such  a  change.'  I  shall  set  up  no  fixed  rule,  but  shall  be 
guided  by  the  situation  in  individual  cases,  allowing  a  reasonable  length  of 
time  for  the  change  in  every  case.  I  work  on  the  hypothesis  that  the 
action  proceeds  continuously,  without  pause. 

Choephori. — Servant     retires     886.     Clytaemestra     remains.     Orestes     and 
Pylades  appear  890.     The  intervening  verses  (886-890)  do  not  allow  time  for    ii^7-29/ 
a  change  of  dress. 

Orestes. — Hermione,  Electra,  Orestes,  and  Pylades  (mute)  are  present  1323-52; 
stasimon  1353-68.  Enter  Phrygian  1367.  It  would  be  extremely  inconvenient 
in  these  fifteen  short  verses  (1353-67)  for  either  of  the  actors  in  the  preceding 
episode  to  change  costume  and  appear  in  the  character  of  the  Phrygian,  especially 
since  the  actor  of  Electra  or  Hermione  would  have  to  make  the  change.  Orestes 
is  present  with  the  Phrygian  1506. 

Acharnians. — Dicaeopolis,  Herald,  Amphitheus'  (exit  56);  Dicaeopolis, 
Herald,  Persian  Ambassador  (enters  64).  Only  eight  (56-64)  verses  would  be 
available  for  the  impersonator  of  Amphitheus  to  retire  and  assume  the  elaborate 
dress  of  the  Persian  Ambassador.  In  98-135  Dicaeopolis,  Ambassador,  Pseud- 
artabas,  and  Herald  are  present  at  once.  Even  if  it  be  granted  that  the  Herald 
and  Pseudartabas  are  played  by  non-regular  actors,  we  shall  find  it  inconvenient 
in  this  scene  to  make  out  with  less  than  four.     Ambassador  and  Pseudartabas 

such  a  wooden  appliance.  Objections  to  masks  for  the  classical  period  are  not  unap- 
preciated; cf.  P.  Girard  Rev.  et.  grec.  VII  (1894),  pp.  i  ff.,  and  VIII,  pp.  88  ff.;  and 
Capps's  review  Am.  Jour.  Arch.  (1905),  pp.  496  ff.,  in  which  the  facts  are  briefly  stated. 
O.  Hense's  extreme  view  {Modifizierung  d.  Masken  in  d.  gr.  Trag.,  Freiburg,  1905) 
is  not  convincing  to  some  minds.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  classical  poets  accepted 
so  awkward  a  convention  and  then  resorted  to  such  strained  and  artificial  means  in 
trying  to  make  a  virtue  of  necessity. 

1  Beer  assumes  that  the  change  of  dress  was  actually  effected  in  the  Choephori 
in  so  short  a  time,  and  thus,  in  his  distribution  of  parts  in  comedy,  he  regards  thirteen 
trimeters  as  representing  the  minimum  time  for  the  change.  Romer  Philol.  LXV 
(1906),  pp.  74  ff.,  has  a  few  remarks  on  the  quick  changes  of  costume.  For  instance 
Teucer  does  not  appear  in  Ai.  780  because  "der  Schauspieler,  welcher  bisher  den 
Aias  spielte,  muss  bald  als  Teukros  auftreten  und  so  musste  Zeit  geschaffen  werden 
fur  die  (leTaaKeiiaffis"  and  in  Ant.  441  the  poet  sends  the  Guard  from  the  scene  that  his 
actor  may  take  the  part  of  Ismene,  who  is  soon  to  appear. 

2  The  italicized  characters  are  those  that  depart  and  enter  respectively;  the 
other  two  characters  are  present  in   both  scenes. 


52  RULE    or   THREE   ACTORS 

retire   126,   Amphitheus   133,   but  Dicaeopolis  remains.     Enter  Theorus   134. 
Between  the  exit  of  Ambassador  126  and  the  entrance  of  Theorus  134  are  only 
8  verses.     Dicaeopolis,  Lamachus,  Herald  {exit  1077);  Dicaeopolis,  Lamachus, 
Messenger  (enters  1084).     Seven  lines  only  (1077-84)  would  be  allowed  for  the     ^ 
actor  to  retire  and  reappear  in  a  different  character. 

Thesmophoriazusae. — In  871-927  Euripides,  Kedestes,  and  Critylla  are  on 
the  scene.  Euripides  retires  927.  Pryianis  enters  829.  For  the  parts  of  Euripi- 
des and  Prytanis,  therefore,  separate  actors  are  necessary. 

Frogs. — Dionysus,    Xanthias,    Heracles    {exit    165);     Dion5'sus,    Xanthias, 
Dead  Man  (enters  169).     Only  four  verses  intervene  between  the  departure  of 
Heracles  and  the  entrance  of  Dead  Man.     Dionysus,  Xanthias,  Dead  Man  {exit 
177);  Dionysus,  Xanthias,  Charon  (enters  183).    Only  six  verses  intervene  between      2^? 
the  exit  of  Dead  Man  and  the  entrance  of  Charon. 

Ecclesiazusae. — 887-1044  Youth  Maiden,  Old  Woman  A  {exit  1044);  1043-45 
Youth,  Maiden,  1049-65  Youth,  Maiden,  Old  Woman  B  (enters  1049).     Only 
fiye  verses  intervene  between  the  exit  of  Old  Woman  A  and  the  entrance  of  Old      H 
Woman  B. 

Lysistrata. — In  829-44  Lysistrata,  M5TThina,  and  Woman  B  are  present  on 
the  scene.  Woman  B  and  Myrrhina  retire  844.  Enter  Cinesias  845.  It  would 
thus  be  impossible  for  the  impersonator  either  of  Woman  B  or  of  Myrrhina  to 
assume  the  part  of  Cinesias. 

Clouds. — Pheidippides  departs  125.  Strepsiades  is  alone  126-32.  Pupil 
appears  on  the  scene  133.  The  seven  intervening  lines  between  the  exit  of  Phei- 
dippides 125  and  the  entrance  of  Pupil  133  give  insufficient  time  for  the  actor  who 
plays  the  former  to  play  the  latter  also.  Three  different  actors,  then,  are  desirable 
for  the  parts  of  Strepsiades,  Pheidippides,  and  Pupil.  Pupil  leaves  the  scene 
at  220;  Socrates  comes  on  221.  One  actor  cannot  take  these  two  parts.  Socrates 
Pheidippides,  and  Strepsiades  are  together  868-88.  For  the  part  of  the  Pupil 
therefore,  the  actor  of  neither  Socrates,  Pheidippides,  nor  Strepsiades  is  available. 

Birds. — Peithetaerus,  Euelpides,  Servant  of  Epops  {exit  84),  Peithetaerus, 
Euelpides,  Epops  (enters  92).     There  are  8  verses  only  (84-92)  for  the  actor  of    7/Sjf 
Servant  to  reappear  as  Epops.      Prometheus  leaves  the  scene  at  1552.     After 
the  stasimon  (1553-64)  enter  Neptune,  Heracles,  and  Triballus.     The  execution 
of  this  short  ode  would  hardly  give  the  actor  of  Prometheus  sufficient  time  to    ;' 
retire,  change  dress,  and  reappear  in  the  character  of  either  Neptune,  Heracles, 
or  Triballus.     At  1694  exeunt  Poseidon,  Heracles,  Peithetaerus,  and  Triballus.    3/ 
After  a  short  stasimon  of  twelve  verses  (1694-1705)  the  Messenger  enters.     It 
would  be  extremely  inconvenient  for  the  impersonator  of  Poseidon,  Heracles,  ? 
Peithetaerus,  or  of  Triballus  to  assume  the  role  of  the  Messenger. 

Wasps. — Bdelycleon,  Sosias,  Xanthias  {exit  141);  Bdelycleon,  Sosias,  Philo- 
cleon  (enters  144).  Xanthias  leaves  the  scene  after  141,  for  the  words  ^i^^'  Mpei 
could  not  have  been  addressed  to  him  unless  he  was  still  present  on  the  scene. 
Philocleon  is  visible  upon  the  top  of  the  proscenium  144.  I  hold,  therefore, 
that  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  same  actor  to  play  the  parts  of  Xanthias 


IN  CLASSICAL   GREEK   DRAMA  53 

and  Philocleon  without  causing  a  pause  in  the  action,  which  would  be  quite  inap- 
propriate in  such  an  animated  scene. 

Bdelycleon,   Philocleon,  Bread-dealer  (exit   141 2);    Bdelycleon,   Philocleon,   r" 
Citizen  (enters  141 7).     Only  five  verses  are  available  for  a  change  of  costume. 

E.  Bad  assignment  of  roles. — Great  actors,  like  all  great  men,  are  also 
persons  of  more  than  ordinary  individuality.  They  cannot  disguise 
themselves  completely,  or  even  to  a  great  degree,  in  an  assumed  character. 
Their  personality  reveals  itself  in  every  movement.  The  question  is  some- 
times raised  whether  any  actor  is  an  artist  who  cannot  imitate  a  person- 
ality unlike  his  ow^n.  If  the  answer  is  "No,"  few  of  our  great  actors  merit 
the  title  to  which  they  aspire.  Edwin  Booth  and  Edward  A.  Sothern  are 
the  only  great  actors  of  the  past  in  this  country  who  could  overlay  their 
individuality  with  more  than  a  make-up.  Forrest  and  Jefferson  were 
unvarying  in  all  but  externals.  No  matter  how  they  looked  or  spoke,  they 
were  always  themselves.  So  the  late  Sir  Henry  Irving,  Hackett,  Mansfield, 
Drew,  Crane,  Gillette,  and  the  present  Sothern.  It  is  far  from  my  purpose 
to  underestimate  the  mimetical  side  of  acting  or  even  deny  that  to  lose 
one's  own  personality  in  an  assumed  character  may  be  the  real  goal  of  the 
histrionic  art  as  such.  Versatility  in  an  actor  may  be  desirable,  but  it  is 
not  necessary.  The  same  end  can  be  attained  by  a  different  method, 
if  the  actor's  individuality  is  carefully  studied  with  reference  to  the  role 
to  which  he  is  assigned.  My  contention  is  that  any  actor  is  more  likely  to 
score  in  a  part  when  the  disposition,  temperament,  and  mannerism  of  the 
artist  are  most  similar  to  those  of  the  character  whom  he  is  to  interpret. 
He  must  also  look  the  part.  No  actor  can  overcome  his  own  physical 
peculiarities.  He  plays  himself  in  other  people's  situations.  "The  fitting 
of  the  actor  to  the  part"  is  a  principle  observed  in  the  minutest  detail 
under  modern  systems  of  stage  management.  ^  We  have  evidence  for 
believing  that  the  principle  is  also  a  universal  one.  Sophocles,  we  are 
informed  on  the  authority  of  Ister  (Vit.  Soph.,  p.  128.  30  West.),  created 
characters  suited  to  the  personality  and  capacity  of  his  actors,  whom  he 
knew  in  advance.     Plotinus^  tells  us  that  it  was  the  habit  of  the  poet  to     ^<^<^H*^ 

I  A  dipping  from  the  dramatic  section  of  one  of  our  leading  magazines  will  illus- 
trate the  point.  "It  may  surprise  those  unfamiliar  with  the  ways  of  managers  to  know 
they  are  extremely  particular  about  the  personal  appearance  and  characteristics  of  the 
players.  Applicants  whose  personality  is  unknown  to  the  manager  are  required  to  set 
forth  their  weight,  height,  coloring,  and  other  details  which  are  baldly  entered  in  a 
book  kept  for  that  purpose.  It  often  happens  that  an  individual's  physical  character- 
istics go  a  long  way  toward  making  him  score  in  a  part.  It  was  not  Raymond  Chase's 
previous  experience  that  gained  him  the  opportunity  to  play  Bub  Hicks  in  the  College 
Widow,  but  the  fact  that  he  looked  as  if  he  might  be  Bub." 

'  Enead.  iii,  p.  269:    ^Kdffrcfi  roi>j  irpoa-qKovTas  \6yovs;   cf.  Epictetus  23:   abv  yap 


54  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

assign  "to  each  the  appropriate  part."  It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore, 
that  the  adaptability  of  the  actor  to  the  role  was  also  an  important  and 
fundamental  consideration  with  managers  of  the  Greek  stage  in  the  assign- 
ment of  parts.  Versatility  was  even  rarer  among  actors  of  antiquity  than 
in  modern  times. ^  Actors  in  every  age  have  won  fame  in  a  particular 
role,  or  roles  of  a  certain  type.  Nicostratus  was  best  in  messenger  roles. ^ 
Each  actor  played  his  special  type  of  roles.  Nicostratus  may  have  been 
incapable  of  interpreting  the  subtle  and  psychological  character  of  Clytae- 
mestra  in  the  Agamemnon  or  of  Oedipus  the  King,  and  yet  have  starred 
in  those  beautiful  messenger  parts  of  Euripides  where  there  is  no  subtlety 
of  character  or  psychology  involved,  but  rhetoric  and  oratory.  Aeschines 
was  exceptionally  well  suited  to  the  role  of  king.  His  stature,  finely  reso- 
nant voice,  deep  and  voluminous,  capable  of  wonderful  modulation  and 
variety  of  inflection,  made  him  particularly  adapted  to  the  epic  dignity 
and  stateliness  of  kings.  Thus  he  played  the  part  of  Creon  in  the  Antigone, 
Cresphontes  and  Oinomaus  in  the  like-named  plays  of  Euripides  and 
Sophocles  (supra,  p.  39,  n.  i).  The  physical  beauty  of  Theodorus  (Aesch. 
ii.  52)  and  other  qualifications  made  him  most  successful  in  female  r61es. 
He  played  Antigone  (Dem.  Fals.  leg.  247),  Hippodameia,^  Hecuba  (Tro- 
ades),^  and  Merope.5  I  do  not  recall  an  instance  where  he  is  said  to  have 
played  male  characters. 

tout'  ^ffTi  rh  dodiv  vwoKplvaixdai  irp6(xu)irov  /caXws,  iKXi^acrOai  5'  aiirb  &Wov  and  Sim- 
plicius  on  the  passage  (Schweighauser  Epictet.  IV,  p.  206) :  t6  iJiiv  iK\^^a<r6ai  tup 
vwoKpiTwv  'iKa.(TTOv  irpbs  rb  iiriT7)deiov  irpdcrunrov  iv  t(^  dpdfjuxTi  ....  tov  diddffKovTos  t6 
dpafid  iffTip.  Cf.  also  Teles  in  Stobaeus  xxvii,  p.  117;  Alciphron  Ep.  35  Schepers 
[71],  Synesias  De  provid.,  p.  106  a. 
S f  I  Plato  Rep.  iii.  39^  a:   oidi  tol  viroKpiral  Kwp.({)8oh  re  /cat  TpayifdoTs  ol  ai/roi — in 

contrast  to  the  practice  of  our  modem  actors. 

2  Prov.  Coisl.  cited  by  Miiller  BuhnenalL,  p.  186,  n.  2.  Some  of  the  messenger 
parts  in  Euripides  are  extremely  important.  In  the  Bacchae  and  Phoenissae  the  mes- 
senger r61es  are  among  the  most  important  of  the  plays;   see  Volker  loc.  cit.,  p.  184. 

3  The  part  of  Hippodameia  is  thought  to  be  the  leading  part  of  the  Oinomaus 
(Stobaeus  27.6),  and  since  Aeschines,  who  played  the  title  role,  was  constantly  associ- 
ated with  Theodorus,  it  is  likely  that  the  latter  played  the  part  of  Hippodameia;  cf. 
Schafer.  op.  cit.  I,  2,  p.  248,  n.  i. 

4  Plut.  Pelopidas  29  tells  the  story  of  Alexander's  being  moved  to  tears  at  the 
performance  of  Troades  in  which  the  leading  character  is  Hecuba;  but  he  does  not 
mention  the  name  of  the  actor.  Aelian  14.  40  relates  the  same  story,  adding  that  the 
name  of  the  actor  was  Theodorus. 

5  Aelian  says  that  Theodorus  played  the  part  of  Aerope,  the  title-role  of  Euripdes' 
Cretan  Women;  but  Valckanaer  Diatribe,  p.  5,  suggests  Merope  instead,  the  leading 
character  of  the  Cresphontes;  see  Schafer,  p.  243,  and  Volker  Diss.  Hal.  IV,  pp.  192  ff. 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK    DRAMA  55 

The  most  remarkable  document  that  has  come  down  to  us  from  anti- 
quity relative  to  the  roles  played  by  an  actor  and  the  character  of  his  roles 
is  an  inscription  from  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  which  records 
the  victories  won  by  a  certain  Tegeatan  actor,  the  festival  where  the  victory 
was  won,  and  the  roles  that  he  played.'  From  the  inscription  we  learn 
further  that  the  actor  was  a  pugilist,  pefsumably  of  extraordinary  size. 
At  the  City  Dionysia  at  Athens  he  won  in  the  role  of  Orestes;  at  the  Soteria 
at  Delphi  and  at  Argos  he  played  Heracles.  As  Herzog  (p.  444)  has 
pointed  out,  all  the_seven  characters  which  this  actor  chose  are  heroes  of  (j'"^- 
huge  bodily  size  and  strength,  and  demand  the  same  type  of  acting.  It 
becomes  ob\'ious,  therefore,  that  only  those  plays  were  selected  for  our 
boxer-actor  which  were  pecuHarly  adapted  to  display  his  physical  prowess. 
The  record  is  extremely  interesting  and  significant  in  showing  to  what  a 
remarkable  degree  of  realism  dramatic  performances,  in  the  Hellenistic 
period  at  least,  had  come.  Personal  appearance  and  mental  character- 
istics seem  to  have  been  paramount  in  the  selecting  of  an  actor  for  a  par- 
ticular role.     The  actor  had  to  fit  the  part. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  I  propose  to  point  out  the  cases  in  the 
plays  where  this  important  principle  of  the  suitability  of  the  actor  to  the 
part  is  utterly  disregarded  in  the  conventional  doubling  of  parts  required 
by  the  three-actor  law.  The  bad  combinations  adduced  are  those  which 
are  absolutely  necessitated  by  the  economy  of  the  play  if  that  law  is  applied, 
unless  otherwise  stated. 

I.  Important  male  and  female  roles  must  be  doubled. — It  is  extremely 
desirable  that  the  leading  male  and  female  characters  in  a  play  should  be 
impersonated  by  a  different  actor. ^  The  actor  of  female  roles  should 
be  of  small  stature,  fine  voice,  and  should  possess  other  qualifications 
which  would  render  the  actor  unfit  for  male  roles.     There  were  doubtless 

1  Dittenberger  Syl.'^,  No.  700  Capps  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  XXXI  (1900),  p.  137. 
Herzog  Philol.  LX  (1901),  pp.  400  ff.,  first  discovered  the  clue  to  the  peculiar  choice 
of  roles. 

2  Women  did  not  appear  upon  the  English  stage  prior  to  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  The  custom  was  for  boys  to  play  these  roles.  The  famous  Elizabethan 
actor,  Charles  Hart,  began  his  career  as  a  boy  by  playing  female  characters.  Edward 
Kynaston,  another  actor  of  this  period,  was  successful  only  in  female  roles.  He  is 
said  to  have  worn  the  petticoat  with  remarkable  grace  and  elegance.  Kynaston  was  so 
beautiful  in  his  youth  that  ladies  of  quality  often  prided  themselves  in  taking  him  for 
drives  in  Hyde  Park.  His  beauty  suffered  no  decay  even  to  his  last  appearance.  It 
is  said  that  from  his  early  and  constant  impersonation  of  female  characters,  he  contracted 
some  unpleasant  tones  in  speaking;  cf.  Gait  Lives  of  Players.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  I  think,  that  the  Greeks  also,  in  seeking  out  actors  for  female  roles,  demanded 
that  they  should  possess  qualities  peculiarly  fitted  to  such  roles. 


56  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

in  antiquity  many  actors  who  were  celebrated  for  their  female  r61es ;  I 
am  inclined  to  the  view  that  these  actors  were  largely,  if  not  exclusively, 
used  for  such  roles.  Our  evidence,  however,  is  not  conclusive  on  this 
point.     Our  chief  argument  is  the  fitness  of  things. 

Agamemnon. — Cassandra  and  Aegisthus .  would  have  to  be  doubled.'  The 
part  of  Orestes  must  be  added  if  we  include  the  other  plays  of  the  trilogy. 

Prometheus. — Hephaestus,  Oceanus,  and  lo  fall  to  the  same  actor.* 

Trachiniae. — Heracles  and  Deianeira.  This  combination  is  objectionable 
in  every  way.  The  characters  of  the  persons  as  drawn  in  the  play  are  quite 
antithetical.  Deianeira  is  a  person  of  deep  feeling,  calm  and  resolute.  Heracles 
on  the  contrary,  is  very  emotional,  gives  vent  to  his  passion  in  unrestrained  out- 
bursts of  lamentation.  Besides,  an  actor  of  very  large  proportions  would  be 
desirable  for  the  part,  as  Heracles  is  traditionally  large  and  strong.  Such  an 
actor  would  ill  fit  the  part  of  Deianeira. 

Ajax. — The  same  actor  plays  the  following  characters  in  the  order  in  which 
I  have  arranged  them:  Odysseus  1-133;  Tecmessa  201-595,  787-812,  891-973; 
Menelaus  1047-1160;   Odysseus  1318-1401.3 

Electra. — Orestes  and  Clytaemestra:  Orestes  1-85;  Clytaemestra  516-803; 
Orestes  1097-1375;  Orestes  1424-1507. 

Alcestis.'^ — Death  and  Alcestis,  Pheres  and  Heracles:  Death  28-76;  Heracles 
476-550;  Alcestis  244-391;  Pheres  675-740;  Heracles  773-860;  Alcestis  (mute) 
1008-1163.  We  need  merely  to  call  attention  to  the  incongruous  combination 
of  the  parts  of  Heracles  and  Alcestis.  The  part  of  Pheres  adds  another  unsuit- 
able role. 

Hippolytus. — Phaedra  and  Theseus:  The  actor  is  present  in  the  part  of 
Phaedras  in  198-361,  373-524,  565-609,  668-731;  the  same  actor  comes  on  as 
Theseus  in  790-1  loi,    1 160-1267. 

1  So  Richter,  p.  36;  Wecklein  Oresteia,  p.  28;  O.  Miiller  Eumenides,  p.  no.  Another 
possibility  is  to  give  Aegisthus  to  Actor  III,  who  already  plays  Guard,  Herald,  and 
Agamemnon.     This  would  overload  the  third  actor  (supra,  p.  49). 

2  This  is  probably  the  best  arrangement,  though  Cratus  might  be  substituted  for 
Hephaestus,  and  Oceanus  assigned  to  the  third  actor.  In  any  case  the  doubling  of 
Hephaestus  (Cratus)  and  lo  is  most  unsuitable.  I  assume,  of  course,  that  an  actor 
was  used  for  Prometheus.  The  lay-figure  theory  has  little  in  its  favor,  in  my  opinion, 
and  much  against  it.  The  grotesque  effect  of  such  a  device  v^^ould  be  intolerable, 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  an  opportunity  is  offered  for  splendid  effect. 

3  It  is  impossible  to  settle  upon  any  definite  distribution.  Robert  Hermes  XXXI, 
p.  539,  makes  six  different  distributions,  but  does  not  exhaust  the  possibilities.  In  any 
possible  management  of  these  actors,  however,  the  part  of  Tecmessa  must  be  doubled 
with  one  of  the  important  male  characters.  I  have  accepted  the  distribution  of  Her- 
mann and  Richter  as  being  the  least  objectionable. 

4  So  Hermann ;  Richter  assigns  Pheres'  part  to  the  third  actor. 

s  The  part  of  the  Nurse  might  be  substituted  for  that  of  Phaedra,  but  the  com- 
bination would  be  subject  to  the  same  criticism. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  57 

Iphigeneia  at  Aulis. — Menelaus  and  Clytaemestra:  Menelaus  304-542; 
Cl)^aemestra  607-1035;    1097-1629. 

Orestes. — Electra  and  Menelaus:  Electra  1-315;  Menelaus  356-716;  Electra 
844-1352;  Menelaus  1554-1693.  The  interlaced  order  in  which  the  characters 
appear  upon  the  scene  would  make  it  exceedingly  hard  for  the  actor,  to  conceal 
his  own  identity. 

Heraclidae.—Copreus  55-283;    Macaria  474-601;   Alcmena  646-1055. 

Heracles.'— Meg&ra.  60-347;   Lyssa  843-74;   Theseus  1163-1428. 

Bacchae. —Fentheus  215-518,    642-846,    912-76;    Agave  1168-1392. 

Phoenissae.— Antigone  88-201;  Polyneices  357-637;  Menoeceus  834-1018; 
Antigone  1265-83,  1485-1763.  Another  actor  plays  locasta  1-87,  301-637; 
Creon  697-783,  834-985;   locasta  1072-1283;    Creon  1310-1682. 

2.  Parts  of  messengers,  guards,  and  servants  are  combined  with  those  of 
princesses  and  other  female  roles  of  delicate  and  refined  type.  Necessarily 
a  different  style  of  acting  is  demanded  for  such  widely  different  types  of 
characters.  Actors  of  different  external  and  physical  characteristics  would 
also  be  required  to  impersonate  them. 

Antigone. — Ismene  1-99;  Guard  223-331,  384-640;  Ismene  531-81.  The 
Guard  is  represented  in  the  play  as  a  humorous  and  boorish  person,  and  is  abso- 
lutely unfit  to  take  on  also  the  role  of  Ismene.  One  actor  plays  also  the  part 
of  Antigone  1-99,  384-581,  806-943;    Messenger  1155-1256. 

Iphigeneia  at  Aulis. — Messenger  414-41;  Iphigeneia  631-690,  1211-1510; 
Messenger  1532-1625. 

Orestes. — Helena  71-125;    Messenger  852-956;    Phrygian  Slave  1369-1536. 

Electra  (Eur.).— Peasant  1-81,  341-431;  Old  Man  487-698;  Messenger 
761-858;    Clytaemestra  998-1146,   1165-67;    Castor  or  Pollux  1238-1356. 

Oedipus  Rex. — locasta  634-862,  911-1072;   Servant  of  Laius  1123-85. 

3.  Youth  and  old  age  are  disregarded  in  the  assignment  of  parts.  The 
roles  are  also  very  often  of  a  different  sex,  which  renders  such  combinations 
even  more  inappropriate. 

Electra  (Sophocles). — Pedagogue  1-85;  Chrysothemis  328-471;  Pedagogue 
660-803;  Chrysothemis  871-1057;  Pedagogue  1326-1375.  It  is  beyond  the 
power  of  an  ordinary  actor  to  play  successfully  characters  so  widely  different  as 
those  of  the  girl  Chrysothemis  and  the  Old  Pedagogue  under  any  arrangement, 
but  the  interlaced  order  of  their  appearance  in  this  play  adds  materially  to  the 
difficulty. 

Antigone. — Antigone  1-99,  384-581,  806-942;  Teiresias  988-1090;  Messenger 
1 155-1256.  These  characters  are  clearly  unsuitable  for  one  actor.  The  suc- 
cessive order  in  which  the  characters  appear  would  favor  the  doubling  of  parts  of 
like  nature,  but  there  is  no  similarity  between  the  character  of  Antigone  and 
Teiresias. 

I  This  seems  to  be  the  best  arrangement;  see  Wilamowitz  Heracles  I*,  pp.  151  ff. 


58  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

Bacchae. — The  aged  Cadmus  178-367;  Attendant  434-50;  Messenger  660- 
774,  1024-1152;  Cadmus  12 16-1392. 

Andromache.^ — Hennione  147-273;  Peleus  547-765;  Hermione  825-1008; 
Peleus  1047-1288;  Richter  adds  the  part  of  Female  Servant  56-90.  Peleus  is 
represented  as  a  feeble,  morose  old  man,  Chrysothemis  a  girl  of  delicate  nature. 
The  parts  should  not  be  doubled  under  any  circumstances. 

Iphigeneia  at  Aulis. — Old  Man  1-163,  303-318;  Messenger  414-39;  Iphige- 
neia  607-90;  Old  Man  855-895;  Iphigeneia  1211-1510;  Messenger  1532-1629. 
Iphigeneia  in  this  play  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  refined  characters  in  all 
Greek  literature.  To  combine  the  part  with  that  of  the  Old  Man  and  the  Messen- 
ger would  be  likely  to  produce  a  ludicrous  effect. 

Suppliants  (Eur.).— Aethra,  an  old  woman  of  excitable  and  nervous  dis- 
position, 1-41,  87-364;  Herald  398-597  (Hermann,  p.  51);  Messenger  634-777; 
Evadne  990-1071;  Boy  1123-64;  Athena  1183-1231. 

4.  Other  unsuitable  and  miscellaneous  roles  must  be  doubled. 

Ion. — Hermes  1-8 1 ;  Xuthus  401-24,  517-675;  Pedagogue  725-1047;  Servant 
1106-1228;    Pythia   1320-68;    Athena  1553-1619. 

Hippolytus. — Servant  88-120;  Nurse  176-361,  433-524,  565-731,  776-89; 
Messenger  1 153-1264;   Artemis  1283-1440. 

Orestes. — Helena  71-125;  Tyndareus  470-629;  Pylades  729-806;  Messenger 
832-956;  Pylades  1018-1245,  1347-49;  Phrygian  Slave  1369-1536;  Apollo 
1678-93. 

Phoenissae. — Pedagogue  88-201;  Eteocles  446-637,  690-783;  Teiresias  834- 
959;    Messenger  1067-1263,  1335-1480;    Oedipus  1539-1763. 

Oedipus  Rex. — Priest  1-150;  Teiresias  300-462;  locasta  634-862;  Servant 
of  Laius  1123-85. 

Acharnians.^ — One  actor  plays  the  parts  of  Persian  Ambassador  65-125, 
Theorus  134-66,  Euripides  407-79,  Lamachus  572-622,  Megarian  729-835, 
Boeotian  860-954,  Farmer  1018-36,  Lamachus  1072-1142,  1 190-1226.  These 
roles  are  obviously  of  two  distinct  types.  The  impersonator  of  Euripides  or  of 
Lamachus  must  maintain  a  pseudo-seriousness  and  dignity  throughout,  while 
the  actor  of  the  Megarian,  Boeotian,  and  Farmer  indulges  in  a  witty  and  unre- 
strained manner  in  the  commonplace  topics  of  their  pursuits.  They  also  have  a 
"broad  Scotch"  accent,  and  thus  an  actor  clever  at  imitating  the  Doric  dialect 
would  be  necessary  for  the  parts. 

Frogs. — One  actor  plays  Xanthias  1-664,  739-8o8;  Aeschylus  840-1523. 
A  second  actor  plays  Heracles  38-164,  Charon  180-270,  Janitor  465-78,  Atten- 
dant of  Persephone  503-21,  Boarding-house  Keeper  548-78,  Janitor  605-73, 
738-813;  Euripides  830-1456.     No  one  would  question,  I  think,  the  desirability 

I  Menelaiis  might  be  assigned  to  this  actor  instead  of  Peleus,  but  the  above  com- 
bination is  the  usual  one. 

*  Of  course  this  distribution  does  not  take  into  account  the  parts  of  Pseudartabas, 
Herald,  and  Nicarchus,  for  which  neither  of  the  three  regular  actors  is  available. 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK    DRAMA  59 

of  a  different  actor  for  the  parts  of  Xanthias  and  Aeschylus.  Both  characters 
are  very  important.  Though  Xanthias  speaks  but  i6o  verses,  yet  this  by  no 
means  represents  the  significance  of  his  part.  He  is  continually  present  upon 
the  scene  up  to  813,  and  when  silent  adds  to  the  fun  by  his  by-play.  The  part  is 
that  of  a  slave  full  of  fun  and  tricks  who  is  constantly  turning  the  tables  on  his 
stupid  master,  Dionysus.  The  part  of  Aeschylus  is  quite  different.  The  actor 
must  be  capable  of  rendering  effectively  the  high  tragic  style  and  must  also  possess 
singing  ability,  since  the  part  contains  important  lyrical  elements.  The  actor 
of  Euripides  also  has  an  undesirable  mixture  of  unsuitable  roles,  such  as  Janitor, 
Heracles,  Female  Servant,  etc. 

Peace.'— Servant  B  1-49;  Hermes  180-233;  Tumult  255-84;  Hermes  362- 
726;  Heracles  1052-1115.  The  same  actor  must  also  play  Crestmaker,  Sword- 
maker,  Flutemaker,  and  Breastplatemaker. 

Wasps.— Xa.nthias  1-137;  Philocleon  144-97,  3i7-io°8,  1 122-1264,  1326- 
1448,  1482-15 15.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  impossibihty  of  the  same 
actor's  playing  the  parts  of  Xanthias  and  Philocleon  owing  to  the  lack  of  time 
for  a  change  of  costume  {supra,  p.  52).  But  if  we  assume  a  pause  in  the  action, 
thus  giving  Xanthias'  actor  opportunity  to  change  dress  and  come  on  as  Philocleon, 
the  combination  would  not  be  appropriate.  Philocleon  is  a  person  of  most 
individual  type  of  character.  He  is  represented  as  a  bigoted  devotee  to  that 
malady  most  incident  to  his  countrymen,  viz.,  the  litigious  spirit.  Xanthias  is 
the  usual  type  of  Aristophanic  slave,  witty  and  cajoling. 

Lysislrata.'' — Calonice  1-253;  Proboulus  387-613;  Cinesias  845-1012;  Young 
Woman  A  728-80;  Athenian  A  1058-1189,  1216-41.  Another  actor  plays 
Myrrhina  69-253,  Old  Woman  A  439-613,  Young  Woman  B  735-80, 
Spartan  Herald  980-1013,  Spartan  1076-1188,  1242-132 1.  Cinesias,  Proboulus, 
and  Calonice  are  individual  enough  to  require  each  a  separate  actor.  The 
combination  has  also  the  objection  of  forcing  the  same  actor  to  play  male  and 
female  roles.  The  same  principle  is  violated  by  combining  Myrrhina  with  the 
two  Spartans,  the  Herald  and  Ambassador.  The  marked  Doric  dialect  spoken  by 
the  two  Spartans  would  require  an  actor  who  could  render  that  dialect  with  facility. 

Thesmophoriazusae. 3— Euripides  1-279;  Micca  295-764;  Euripides  871- 
927,    1055-1132,    1 160-1209.     The  order  of  appearance  also  militates  against 

1  The  large  number  of  "makers"  at  the  end  of  this  play  were  doubtless  phiyed 
by  supernumeraries,  since  their  parts  are  of  little  importance. 

2  This  distribution  leaves  out  of  account  characters  for  which  a  fourth  actor  is 
necessary,  viz.,  Lampito  77-246;    Old  Woman  B  431-613;   Young  Woman  C  742-80. 

3  Observe  that  Aristophanes,  wishing  to  parody  the  tragic  art  in  its  impersona- 
tion of  women,  chooses  for  the  woman's  role  in  this  play  a  person  totally  unfit  in  every 
physical  quality  for  the  artistic  representation  of  female  roles — the  hairy,  old,  rough- 
voiced  Kedestes.  But  at  the  same  time  this  is  a  parody  given  out  as  a  "last  resort," 
for  the  ideal  person  for  the  role  is  the  smooth-shaven,  dainty,  poetical,  effeminate 
Agathon. 


6o  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

the  combination.  To  a  second  actor  fall  the  parts  of  Servant  of  Agathon  39-70, 
Agathon  101-265,  Cleisthenes  574-654,  Critylla  758-935,  Scythian  1001-1225. 
This  is  one  case  where,  as  it  seems  to  me,  male  and  female  roles  may  be  combined, 
if  ever.  Agathon  is  called  190  ywaiKbcpuvos  and  Cleisthenes  ijl  proverbially 
effeminate.  The  part  of  the  Scythian,  however,  is  inappropriate,  and  would 
fall  flat  vmless  taken  by  an  actor  capable  of  rendering  the  broken  Greek  of  the 
Scythian. 

Ecclesiazusae. — Praxagora  1-284;  Chremes  372-477;  Praxagora  504-724; 
Man  A  730-871 ;  Old  Woman  A  877-1044;  Servant  of  Praxagora  1112-43.  Another 
actor  plays  Woman  A  36-284,  Blepyrus  311-477,  520-727,  Man  B  746-876, 
Maid  884-1044,  Old  Woman  C  1065-1111,  Master  1130-50.  Thus  the  leading 
actor  must  play  two  important  female  roles  and  two  important  male  roles;  the 
second  actor,  two  male  and  two  female  roles  besides  two  other  minor  roles. 

F.  It  assumes  that  the  state  set  a  limit  to  its  own  expenditures  or  to  the 
demands  which  could  he  made  upon  the  choregus. — All  students  -who  are 
familiar  with  the  traditions  of  the  Greek  stage  have  been  impressed,  I  dare 
say,  with  the  unnatural  situations  occasioned  by  the  three-actor  convention, 
but  no  one  has  justified  this  convention  either  on  the  basis  of  philosophic 
speculation  or  by  setting  forth  material  causes  out  of  which  alone  it  could 
have  sprung.  Since  the  aesthetic  rule  which  limited  the  number  of  actors 
who  could  be  present  upon  the  scene  had  no  connection  with  a  limitation 
of  the  number  of  actors  employed,  practical  considerations  must  have  been 
the  cause  of  the  latter,  if  there  was  such  a  limitation. 

Bergk  Litt.  Gesch.  Ill,  p.  83,  attributed  the  limitation  to  the  lack  of 
good  actors  in  general  and  especially  to  the  lack  of  efficient  actors  for  secon- 
dary roles,  but  without  good  reason.  Every  period  of  exceptional  activity 
in  play-writing  is  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  interest  in  the  art  of 
acting.  They  are  mutually  dependent  the  one  upon  the  other.  During  the 
earlier  part  of  Aeschylus'  career  the  number  of  professional  actors  was 
probably  small,  since  the  profession  was  still  in  its  infancy;  but  in  this 
period  the  pubUc  taste  would  have  been  satisfied  with  amateurs.^  The 
standard  was  not  high.  However,  the  art  of  acting  kept  stride  with  the 
development  of  the  drama,  so  that  toward  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century 

'  The  earliest  stages  of  dramatic  development  in  England  during  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries  furnishes  an  interesting  parallel.  At  this  period  dramatic 
exhibitions  were  confined  almost  exclusively  to  certain  local  festivals.  Such  celebra- 
tions demanded  hundreds  of  performers,  but  the  public  taste  was  quite  satisfied  with 
amateurs.  The  lack  of  actors  has  never  restricted  a  poet.  In  primitive  stages  of  the 
drama  primitive  acting  has  sufficed,  but  when  it  has  reached  a  high  state  of  development 
professional  actors  have  been  abundant.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
there  were  about  200  professional  actors  in  London;  cf.  Collier  History  of  Dramatic 
Poetry  III,  pp.  84  ff. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  6l 

the  poets  no  longer  found  it  necessary  to  act  their  own  plays.  The  first 
actors'  contest  was  instituted  in  449  b.  c.  This  was  probably  an  official 
recognition  of  the  high  state  of  excellence  to  which  the  actors'  profession 
had  attained.  The  effect  of  the  recognition  upon  the  profession  in  general 
was  far-reaching.  The  number  of  young  men  of  talent  who  entered  it 
must  have  greatly  increased.  The  competing  actor  was  raised  to  a  position 
of  importance  and  honor  in  the  eyes  of  the  public  second  only  to  the  poet 
himself.  In  the  fourth  century  many  of  the  most  distinguished  men  of 
state  were  actors  by  profession.  The  exalted  position  of  the  prominent  actors 
was  in  itself  a  guarantee  that  many  would  be  drawn  into  the  profession. 

Unhappily  no  statement  in  ancient  literature  concerning  the  number 
of  actors  in  Athens  at  any  period  has  come  down  to  us,  but  evidence  from 
other  sources  is  not  entirely  lacking.  The  great  catalogue  of  victors  IG. 
II  977,  will  enable  us  to  generalize  somewhat  on  the  subject.  This  docu- 
ment in  eight  sections  gave  for  each  festival  separately  the  names  of  the 
victorious  poets,  tragic  and  comic,  and  of  the  victorious  protagonists,  tragic 
and  comic.  The  names  are  entered  in  the  order  of  first  victories.  Of  the 
section  devoted  to  the  Lenaean  tragic  actors  we  have  in  fragg.  r  s  tuvw 
(Wilh.  Urk.,  p.  145)  the  major  part  of  four  continuous  columns.  The 
tragic  actors'  contest  at  the  Lenaea  was  established  at  the  time  of  the  intro- 
duction of  tragedy  into  the  Lenaea,  ca.  432  b.  c,  as  Reisch  Zeitschr.  /. 
ost.  Gymn.  (1907),  p.  308,  has  shown.  Between  Chaerestratus,  the  first 
name,  and  Thettalus,  whose  first  City  Victory  was  won  in  347,  are  29  actors, 
covering  85  years,  or  a  new  actor  on  the  average  to  a  little  less  than  three 
years.  The  Ust  of  tragic  poets  victorious  at  the  Dionysia  (fragg.  a  b,  p.  loi, 
Wilh.)  shows,  on  the  other  hand,  only  25  new  poets  between  Aeschylus 
485  and  Astydamas  372,  a  period  of  113  years,  that  is,  an  average  of  a  new 
poet  in  4^  years.  From  these  observations  we  may  safely  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  the  supply  of  protagonists  at  Athens  during  the  period  under 
consideration  was  at  least  as  large  as  the  supply  of  good  poets,  in  all 
probabiHty  even  larger.  We  know  that  a  host  of  theatres  arose  in  and 
about  Athens  in  the  fourth  century.  As  the  actor  became  relatively  more 
important  than  the  poet  the  profession  became  one  of  absorbing  interest. 

A  further  examination  of  the  victors'  lists  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
average  number  of  victories  won  by  the  poets  is  considerably  larger 
than  the  average  won  by  the  actors.  At  the  City  Dionysia  Sophocles  is 
credited  with  18  victories,  Astydamas  with  8,  Theodectis  with  7,  Anaxan- 
drides  with  7,  Cratinus  with  6;  at  the  Lenaea  Euboulus  is  credited  with 
6  victories  and  Antiphanes  with  8.  But  no  actor  is  credited  with  more 
than  6  victories.     Hipparchus  leads  with  6  victories  at  the  Lenaea,  but  the 


62  RULE    OF    THREE    ACTORS 

average  is  about  2 ;  few  won  as  many  as  4.  Even  the  famous  actors  Theo- 
dorus  and  Thettalus  are  credited  at  the  Lenaea  with  4  and  2  victories 
respectively.  The  conclusion  is  obvious  that  the  number  of  "first-class" 
actors  exceeded  that  of  the  poets,  and  since  a  poet  would  employ  only  one 
protagonist,  there  must  have  been  a  surplus  of  the  latter.  Since  the  begin- 
ning of  the  actors'  contest,  therefore,  there  was  always  an  abundance  of 
leading  actors,  i.  e.,  protagonists. 

Obviously  the  number  of  first-class  actors  was  proportionately  small  as 
compared  with  actors  of  a  lower  grade.  Relatively  few  in  any  profession 
attain  fair  success.  Second-  and  third-rate  actors,  capable  of  imperson- 
ating secondary  and  minor  characters,  were  abundant.  Even  great  and 
famous  actors,  of  course,  began  by  appearing  in  minor  characters.  All 
actors  must  serve  an  apprenticeship.  When  we  consider  the  large  number 
of  young  apprentices  in  the  profession,  and  the  number  of  actors  of 
second  and  third  grade,  it  seems  absurd  and  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  roles  had  to  be  doubled  owing  to  the  lack  of  proficient  actors  for 
minor  parts.  Those  who  find  in  the  lack  of  efficient  secondary  actors  a 
cause  for  the  limitation  are  not  consistent;  for  even  in  plays  where  a 
fourth  performer  is  necessary,  the  part  is  assigned  by  them  to  a  chorus 
member,  presumably  devoid  of  histrionic  ability,  rather  than  to  a  utility  actor. 

Schneider  Alt.  Theaterw.,  p.  136,  followed  by  Richter  loc.  cit.,  p.  18, 
and  by  Miiller  Biihnenalt.,  p.  177,  holds  that  the  restriction  of  three  actors 
to  each  poet  was  due  to  the  effort  on  the  part  of  the  state  to  be  neutral  in 
its  relations  to  all  the  poets,  to  give  no  poet  an  unequal  advantage  over 
his  competitors.  Such  a  limitation,  it  seems  to  me,  would  have  had  a 
tendency  to  favor  certain  poets  in  that  it  would  have  militated  against 
certain  aspects  of  the  genius  of  other  poets.  If  strictly  impartial  the  state 
would  have  allowed  the  individual  genius  of  each  poet  to  have  full  play. 
Sophocles  employs  three  actors  to  good  effect,  but  Euripides'  genius  delights 
in  the  two-actor  dialogue.  A  two-actor  limitation  would  thus  be  preju- 
dicial to  Sophocles.  The  desires  of  single  poets,  furthermore,  varied  with 
individual  plays  and  the  subject-matter  of  each.  Sophocles  probably  found 
three  actors  adequate  for  the  Philoctetes  with  its  cast  of  only  five  char- 
acters, but  for  Oedipus  Rex  or  Oedipus  Coloneus,  with  a  cast  of  nine 
and  eight  characters  respectively,  three  actors  would  have  been  quite 
inadequate.  Likewise,  the  requirements  for  the  Orestes  with  a  cast  of 
ten  persons  are  far  greater  than  for  the  Ion  or  Medea.     The  cost'  of  pro- 

^  Cf.  Arist.  Eg.  537  ff. :  5s  (Kparij?)  dirb  fffiiKpds  5aTrdvr]s  vpicis  apKTrl^wv  diriirefxwei', 
dirb  Kpa/x^ordrov  ffrd/xaros  fjidrruv  da-TeLOTdrai  ivivoias.  The  poet  seems  to  state  a 
fact,  and  the  impUcation  seems  to  be  that  Crates'  plays  cost  less  for  production  than 
those  of  his  contemporary  poets  of  comedy. 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK   DRAMA  63 

duction  varied  with  individual  plays.  If  the  state  dealt  impartially  with 
the  poets  and  encouraged  their  art  intelligently,  it  either  set  no  limit  at  all 
to  the  number  of  actors  that  the  poet  could  employ,  or  set  the  limit  as  high 
as  five  or  six. 

The  only  conceivable  reason  why  the  state  should  have  limited  the 
number  of  actors  to  three,  rather  than,  e.  g.,  to  six,  if  such  a  number  were 
desirable,  would  be  to  curtail  expenses.  The  small  number  of  actors 
available  for  each  poet,  therefore,  could  only  have  been  a  matter  of  public 
economy. 

The  solution  of  the  question  depends  upon  two  things:  (i)  the  economic 
conditions  of  the  Athenian  state  during  the  period  when  the  drama  was 
under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  state;  (2)  the  provision  made  by  the 
state  for  the  maintenance  of  dramatic  performances. 

The  wealth'  and  prosperity  of  the  Athenian  state  during  the  fifth  and 
fourth  centuries  need  no  comment.  Barring  the  period  of  the  Peiopon- 
nesian  War,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  state  in  the  fifth  century  ever 
found  it  necessary  to  reduce  appropriations  for  dramatic  exhibitions.  In 
this  period,  to  be  sure,  we  know  of  two  measures  which  indicate  the  pinch 
of  poverty,  (i)  the  number  of  comedies  was  reduced  from  5  to  3  from 
ca.  431-425  until  some  time  before  388  {supra,  p.  21,  n.  2),  and 
(2)  the  synchoregia  was  resorted  to  for  the  Dionysia  in  406-5. ^  During 
the  fourth  century  the  treasury  was  full  to  overflowing. 3  Athens  was 
the  richest  city  of  the  ancient  world.  That  the  state  was  fijiancially 
able  to  promote  any  enterprise  for  the  people  is  patent  to  all.  We  know 
further  that  the  surplus  moneys  of  the  treasury  were  spent  upon  the  festi- 
vals of  Dionysus  even  to  the  exclusion  of  other  things.  Demosthenes 
{Phil.  i.  35)  deprecates  the  fact  that  the  Athenians  spend  more  money  upon 
their  theatre  than  for  an  army  or  navy. 4  The  people  used  their  state 
treasury  as  a  pleasure  fund. 

The  state  had  neither  desire  nor  motive  to  limit  closely  its  expenditiures 
for  dramatic  exhibitions;    such  evidence  as  we  have  indicates  liberal,  if 

1  For  the  wealth  of  Athens,  the  source  of  her  income  during  the  fifth  century,  see 
Xen.  Pol.  Ath.  i  and  2;  Bockh  Public  Economy  (Eng.  trans.),  pp.  632  ff. ;  Grote  V, 
P-S4- 

2  Capps  Am.  Jour.  Phil.  XXVIII  (1907),  p.  183.      '  ..       1-^-^  r  "'         ' 

3  Blass  Die  socialen  Zilstande  Athens  im  vierten  Jahrhundert  B.  C.  (Kiel,  1885). 

4  Justinian  17.9  reflects  the  later  tradition  on  the  subject:  in  dies  festos  apparatus- 
que  ludorum  reditus  pubhcos  effundunt  et  actoribus  nobilissimis  poetisque  theatra 
celebrant  frequentius  scaenam  quam  castra  visentes,  versificatoresque  meliores  duces 
laudantes. 


64  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

not  extravagant,  provision  for  them.  We  have  no  evidence  for  definitely 
determining  the  question  whether  actors  were  paid  directly  from  the  state 
treasury  or  by  the  choregus.  The  former  seems  the  more  probable. 
Doubtless  many  actors  of  private  fortunes  played  without  remuneration 
from  any  source.^  If  the  choregus  were  appointed  by  the  state  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  the  entire  production,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  received  an 
injunction  forbidding  him  to  spend  more  than  a  certain  amount.  The 
archon  seems  to  have  been  empowered  to  compel  the  choregus  to  come  up 
to  a  certain  standard,  but  there  was  no  limit  to  the  amount  that  choregi 
might  spend,  and  we  often  hear  of  their  spending  unnecessarily  large  sums. 
It  was  the  policy  of  the  state,  therefore,  to  make  adequate  provision 
for  dramatic  performances,  either  directly  from  the  treasury  or  indirectly 
by  appointing  as  choregi  rich  citizens  who  were  financially  able  to  meet  in 
a  liberal  manner  all  the  expenses  of  the  production. 

V.    THE  EXISTENCE  OF  A  PRACTICAL  THREE-ACTOR  RULE  IN  THE 
PERIOD  OF  THE  GUILDS 

Under  the  choregic  system  at  Athens  considerations  of  economy  played 
a  very  insignificant  role;  they  did  not  serve  to  place  a  restriction  upon 
the  elaboration  and  effectiveness  with  which  plays  were  brought  out. 
General  financial  depression,  such  as  existed  during  the  Peloponnesian 
War,  led,  it  is  true,  to  measures  of  economy  in  the  production  of  tragedies 
and  comedies.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  such  measures  seem  to  have  effected  <^l 
only  the  number  of  plays  produced,  not  the  manner  of  their  production. 
The  brief  resort  to  the  synchoregia  at  the  City  Dionysia,  whereby  two 
citizens  instead  of  one  shared  the  expense  of  fitting  out  a  chorus,^  evinces 
the  desire  of  the  state  to  maintain  even  in  a  period  of  financial  stress  a 
high  quality  of  dramatic  representation,  but  without  putting  an  excessive 
burden  upon  a  single  individual. 

The  restriction  of  dramatic  exhibitions  at  Athens  to  certain  fixed 
seasons  left  to  professional  actors  the  greater  portion  of  the  year  free,  thus 
making  it  possible  for  them  to  practice  their  art  in  other  places.  They 
naturally  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  supplement  the  honorarium 
received  for  their  services  in  state  festivals.  Hence  there  were  organized 
in  the  city  under  the  management  of  certain  leading  actors  dramatic  com- 

1  Such  is  the  assumption  of  Wolf  Proleg.  ad  Dem.  Leptin.,  p.  93,  n.  69. 

2  The  fact  should  be  emphasized  that  in  this  manner  expense  was  saved  to  the 
state  and  to  the  choregi.  The  drama  was  sustained  "unharmed."  Aristophanes 
expresses  the  situation  well  in  Ran.   406  ff.:     wo-re  .  .  .  .  a,^7)tJ.iovs  iral^tiv  re  Kal 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK  DRAMA  65 

panics  which  toured  Attica  and  Greece  in  general.  Such  companies  were 
not  subsidized  by  the  state'  but  were  paid  by  separate  communities.  For 
the  members  of  these  voluntary  associations  of  actors,  the  business  was  of 
the  nature  of  a  private  venture,  their  financial  success  depending  upon 
the  number  and  lucrativeness  of  the  engagements  which  they  were  able 
to  arrange.  The  custom  extended  far  back  into  the  fourth  century  and 
also  into  the  fifth.  Plato  Legg.  viii.  817  c  refers  to  traveling  troupes  which, 
in  his  own  time,  erected  their  booths  in  the  market-places  of  cities  and  gave 
dramatic  performances.  Simylus  and  Socrates,  the  "Ranters"  (Dem. 
De  cor.  262),  hire  Aeschines  and  make  trips  about  Attica.  Aristotle 
{Probl.  XXX.  10)  makes  the  query  why  is  it  that  the  actors  of  wandering 
companies  lead  such  dissolute  lives.  The  remains  of  the  theatre  at 
Thoricus  show  evidence  of  fifth-century  construction,  and  the  theatre  at 
Eretria  also  belongs  to  the  fifth  century.  By  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  all  the  demes  of  Attica  had  their  annual  dramatic  spectacles, 
and  theatres  were  being  erected  in  all  parts  of  Greece.^  From  these  facts 
it  may  be  inferred  that  by  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century  the  custom 
was  well  established  for  companies  to  be  formed  at  Athens  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  the  Dionysia  in  the  demes  of  Attica,  district  fairs,  and  small 
towns  throughout  Greece  with  presentations  of  the  great  masterpieces  of 
Athenian  poets. 3  The  companies  plied  the  acting  profession  as  a  trade, 
a  convenient  and  easy  way  of  earning  a  livelihood.  The  motive  for  dra- 
matic production  in  the  hands  of  the  traveling  companies  was  to  make 
money."  The  conditions  under  which  plays  were  presented  by  them  were 
such  as  would  necessarily  tend  to  make  performances  less  elaborate.  The 
country  communities  could  usually  not  afford  an  extensive  or  elaborate 
dramatic  performance.  While  the  composition  of  a  troupe  depended  in 
a  meas\ire  upon  the  taste  and  wealth  of  individual  communities,  yet  it  is 

'  There  is  one  exceprion  to  this:  the  festival  at  Peiraeus  was  an  event  of  unusual 
importance,  and  Athens  contributed  to  the  expenses  and  supplied  many  victims  for 
sacrifice;   see  Haigh  op.  cit.,  p.  44  and  n.  i. 

2  Cf.  Dorpfeld-Reisch  Gr.  Theat.,  pp.  109,  113,  141,  and  Haigh,  p.  44.  ■2i<^/ 

3  The  best  class  of  actors,  of  course,  performed  in  the  established  theatres  and  at 
the  most  importan'  festivals,  while  actors  who  played  probably  only  insignificant  roles 
at  the  city  festivals  started  on  foot,  giving  performances  wherever  they  could. 

4  We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  motives  which  led  the  various  communities 
to  give  dramatic  exhibitions  at  their  festivals  were  quite  the  same  as  at  Athens,  and 
their  motive  was  not  to  make  money.  They  doubtless  made  their  spectacles  as  grand 
and  splendid  as  they  could  afford,  but,  while  Athens  had  the  money  and  pride  to  make 
plays  ideally  perfect  in  their  presentation,  the  Attic  towns  had  to  economize. 


66  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

probable  that  in  most  cases  they  put  up  with  performances  such  as  the 
manager  chose  to  give  them.^ 

In  estimating  the  great  changes  wrought  by  the  wandering  troupes  in 
dramatic  production,  three  important  factors  must  be  taken  into  account: 
(i)  the  personal  gain  of  the  actor-manager;  (2)  the  extra  expense,  which  is 
a  necessary  concomitant  of  a  traveling  troupe;  (3)  the  non-critical,  crude 
provincial  audience.^  How  would  such  conditions  be  likely  to  affect 
dramatic  presentation  ? 

The  chorus  was  greatly  reduced.  The  expense  and  inconvenience  of 
traveling  would  naturally  tend  to  reduce  the  chorus  of  fifteen  or  twenty- 
four  members  to  a  smaller  number.  The  full  tragic  or  comic  chorus  would 
entail  a  greater  outlay  of  money  than  the  provincial  community  could 
bear,  besides  taxing  the  capacity  of  the  ordinary  theatre.  Seven  comic 
choreutae  are  recorded  in  each  of  the  four  Soteric  hsts  at  Delphi^  (middle 
of  the  third  century).  The  choreutae  entered  in  these  inscriptions  must 
have  had  an  organic  connection  with  the  actors  in  the  production  of  the 
comedies,  and  cannot  have  been  merely  dancers  of  interludes  to  fill  up 
pauses  in  the  action,  or  anything  of  that  kind.'^  The  number  of  the  chorus 
may  have  varied  with  the  importance  of  the  festival,  or  may  have  been 
dispensed  with  entirely  at  the  somewhat  extemporaneous  performances 

1  Of  course  if  a  festival  specified  a  large  number  of  actors  and  elaborate  scenery, 
etc.,  the  manager  would  gladly  furnish  these.  This  would  be  a  matter  of  mutual  agree- 
ment. The  manager  would  be  concerned  only  with  his  profits,  not  the  number  of 
actors.  He  would  add  any  number  to  his  troupe  but  raise  the  price  proportionately. 
However,  it  is  likely  that  a  manager  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century  did  as  he 
pleased,  since  dramatic  performances  in  the  provinces  were  new,  and  the  audiences 
were  easily  satisfied. 

2  The  country  audiences  doubtless  endured  poor  acting,  the  mutilation  of  texts, 
crude  scenery,  etc.,  that  would  have  been  intolerable  to  the  Athenian  spectator. 

3  In  a  catalogue  of  the  second  half  of  the  second  century  (Baunack  SGDI.  II, 
No.  2569),  four  comic  choreutae  only  are  recorded. 

4  The  assimiption  that  the  choreutae  in  these  records  were  not  acting  choruses 
was  due  to  the  false  conception  that  the  chorus  in  comedy  practically  disappeared  early 
in  the  fourth  century.  The  chorus  remained  in  comedy  into  the  third  century.  For 
tragedy  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  chorus  was  ever  given  up.  Cf.  Capps  Atn.  Jour. 
Arch.  X  (1895),  p.  287;  in  Trans.  Am.  Philol.  Ass.  XXXI  (1900),  p.  133,  he  calls 
attention  to  another  significant  fact  which  is  strong  evidence  that  the  connection  of  the 
choreutae  with  the  comic  actors  was  organic,  viz.,  the  absence  of  didascali  after  the 
lists  of  comic  choreutae.  The  didascalus  of  the  actors  seems  to  have  been  in  charge  of 
the  chorus  also.  So  Dracon,  who  figures  in  the  accounts  of  the  Delian  Upoiroiolj 
was  in  charge  of  a  chorus  as  well  as  actors;  see  A.  Korte  Neue  Jahrb.  V  (1900),  p.  84; 
Reisch  in  Pauly-Wissowa  Encyc,  s.  v.  "Chor,"  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  connection 
between  the  chorus  and  actors  was  not  close. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK  DRAMA  67 

in  the  market-places  of  cities.  The  locality  where  the  festival  was  held 
may  have  supplied  mutes'  to  fill  in,  thus  raising  the  chorus  to  its  normal 
size. 

The  traveling  troupes  also  doubtless  dispensed  largely  with  scenery 
and  stage  apparatus  and  with  all  unnecessary  persons.  The  small  number 
of  characters  that  appear  together  in  Greek  plays  gave  the  economical 
manager  an  excellent  opportunity  to  reduce  his  company  to  a  very  small 
figure.  The  largest  number  of  persons  that  engage  in  the  dialogue  at  one 
time  would  determine  the  number  of  actors  in  a  company.  The  text  was 
made  to  conform  to  the  convenience  of  the  troupe,  or  to  the  caprice  of  the 
managing  actor.  The  famous  actor  Theodorus  is  said  to  have  altered 
the  text  of  a  play  in  order  to  come  on  in  the  first  scene.  =*  The  law  of 
Lycurgus,  whereby  only  approved  state  copies  were  allowed  to  be  per- 
formed, shows  the  practice  of  actors  at  this  period  of  distorting  tragic 
texts.  This  very  law  was  aimed  more  especially  at  the  heads  of  troupes, 
who  must  have  taken  great  liberties  with  the  texts  in  presenting  plays. 
The  Athenian  audience  would  not  have  tolerated  the  mutilation  of  texts 
by  actors,  nor  was  it  necessary  to  resort  to  such  a  device  at  the  city  festivals. 
The  custom  of  presenting  a  play  with  three  actors  began  with  performances 
by  traveling  companies  outside  of  Athens  and  was  a  natural  outgrowth 
of  the  economic  plan  upon  which  such  companies  were  conducted. 

Organized  guilds  of  technitae  were  formed  relatively  late.  Poland^ 
has  pointed  out  that  neither  Aristotle  nor  Demosthenes  speaks  of  the  guilds 
by  their  ofl&cial  title  01  -jrepl  rbv  ^lowaov  rex^'iTai.  Furthermore,  since 
Aristotle^*  speaks  of  the  wandering  actors  in  a  contemptuous  manner, 
it  is  extremely  probable  that  they  did  not  have  the  official  standing  which 
we  know  they  possessed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  There 
may  have  been  an  organization  of  some  kind  at  an  earlier  date,  but  it 
did  not  receive  the  sanction  of  the  state.  The  most  important  guild  in 
Greece  was  located  at  Athens. s    At  Thebes  was   also  an  independent 

I  Cf.  Menander  frag.  165  (Kock  CAF.  Ill,  p.  48). 

'  Aristotle  Pol.  1336  b  28;   cf.  also  Schafer  loc.  cit.,  p.  242. 

3  De  col.  arti}.  Dionys.  (1895),  P-  9-  The  guilds  have  been  treated  also  by  Ziebarth 
Gr.  Vereinwesen,  Lpz.,  1896;  Muller  Buhnenalt.  (1886),  pp.  362  ff.,  Reisch  De  tnus. 
certam.  (Wien,  1885).,  p.  72;  Sauppe  Com.  de  col.  art.  seen.  Alt.,  Gott.  1876;  Friedlander 
De  artij.  Dionys.,  Konigsberg,  1874;  Luders  Dionys.  Kiinstler,  Berl.,  1873;  Foucart 
De  col.  seen.  arti}.  apud  Gr.,  Paris,  1873. 

^  Rhet.  1405  a  23  (iii.  2);   cf.  Luders,  p.  59. 

s  ol^v  ' Ad-fivaii  Tex^lrai,  CIA.  II  551.  This  is  the  oldest  datable  document 
relative  to  any  organization  of  technitae.  It  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury,  and   was   inscribed  after   279  b.  c;    cf.  Pomtow  Fleckeis.  Jahrb.  149  (1894), 


68  RULE   OF  THREE  ACTORS 

synod.  ^  In  addition  to  the  two  guilds  just  mentioned  there  was  in  the  main- 
land of  Greece  the  large  corporation  of  technitae,^  which  was  composed 
of  branch  guilds  in  Thebes  {CIG.  2485),  Opus  {SGDI.  II  1502),  Chalcis 
{BCH.  XVI,  pp.  92  ff.),  and  Argos  (Le  Bas  Argolide  116  a).  Guilds 
of  technitae  were  not  confined  to  the  Greek  continent.  The  synod  at  Teos 
was  one  of  the  most  important,  and  the  one  about  which  we  are  best 
informed  (CIG.  3067-71).  Likewise  at  Ptolemais  (BCH.  IX,  p.  133) 
and  at  Cyprus  (CIG.  2619,  2620)  were  flourishing  guilds.  In  all  parts  of 
the  Greek-speaking  world  were  to  be  found  organized  guilds  of  technitae. 
All  musical  and  dramatic  entertainment  passed  exclusively  into  their 
control.3 

The  customs  and  practices  which  characterized  the  early  unorganized 
traveling  companies  were  transferred  to  the  guilds.  The  work  of  the 
former  individual  manager  passed  over  to  the  ofl&cers  of  the  union.  The 
guilds  negotiated  through  its  representatives  with  cities  for  dramatic 
exhibitions.  Originally,  economy  was  the  prime  motive  which  led  the 
wandering  troupes  to  reduce  their  number  to  three  actors,  but  in  the 
course  of  a  century  or  so  their  practices  had  estabUshed  a  fixed  norm. 
The  people  had  come  to  look  upon  three  actors  as  adequate  to  present  a 
play,  as  constituting  the  normal  dramatic  troupe.     At  least,  the  guild  at 

p.  500.  Sauppe,  p.  5,  saw  in  the  diaaos  rCiv  Movcrdv  of  Sophocles  the  prototype  of  the 
technitae  organization,  but  Poland's  investigation  (p.  9)  shows  that  Olaffos  is  restricted 
in  use  to  organizations  for  the  worship  of  gods,  and  is  never  used  for  secular  organiza- 
tions such  as  bands  of  technitae. 

1  rb  KOivhv  Tuv  irepl  rbv  Ai6vvffov  TexfirSiv  t6  iv  Gi^/Sats,  CIG.  2484,  2413,  2414. 
Poland,  pp.  8  ff.,  endeavored  to  prove  by  the  uses  of  Koivbv  and  o-i/yoSos  that  ciivoboi 
was  used  only  of  a  branch  organization,  while  Koivbv  was  a  term  by  which  a  "  Verband" 
or  a  union  of  many  aivoboi  was  designated.  Accordingly  in  Greece  there  existed 
but  one  Koivbv  which  embraced  both  Athens  and  Thebes,  in  addition  to  the  larger 
Isthmian -Nemean  corporation.  The  same  situation  obtained  in  Asia  Minor  and  Egypt, 
where  one  Koivbv  embraced  all  the  civoboi  of  those  countries.  His  arguments  are 
refuted  by  Ziebarth,  p.  79,  who  shows  that  no  such  distinction  is  observed  in  the  use 
of  these  terms. 

2  Whose  official  title  was  rb  KOivbv  ruv  irepl  rbv  Aibvvcrov  Texft-Tdv  i^  'ladfj-ov  k. 
Neix4as. 

3  The  main  motive  that  prompted  actors  to  unite  in  a  close  organization  was  to 
promote  their  own  material  welfare  and  the  interests  of  individual  members.  It 
has  also  been  suggested  that  the  purpose  was  to  better  the  condition  of  poor  traveling 
companies  that  wandered  about,  or  perhaps  the  habit  of  making  expeditions  over 
Greece  had  had  a  pernicious  effect  upon  actors  and  the  status  of  the  drama  so  that  the 
state  became  instrumental  in  their  formation  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  the  drama 
to  its  sacred  position  and  for  the  purpose  of  getting  better  actors  for  her  festivals. 
Cf.  Liiders,  p.  63;   Muller  Buhnenalt.,  p.  393. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK  DRAMA  69 

Athens  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century  regarded  three  as  the  regular 
number  for  a  dramatic  company.  For  this  we  have  positive  evidence 
in  Delphic  inscriptions  which  give  the  names  of  the  performers  at  the 
Soteria  for  four  years,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.  c.  The 
participants  in  these  exhibitions  were  furnished  by  the  Athenian  guild  of 
artists,' 

It  has  been  shown  by  Capps  that  the  names  of  many  of  the  par- 
ticipants in  the  Soteria  are  in  the  contemporary  agonistic  Hsts  found  at 
Delos,  and  that  the  names  of  a  number  of  comic  actors  who  participated 
in  the  Soteria  or  in  the  Delian  Apollonia  are  also  found  in  the  section  of 
the  Athenian  Victors'-lists  devoted  to  comic  actors  (IG.  II  977).  The 
Athenian  list  gives  only  the  victorious  protagonists.  A  tabulation  of 
the  facts  regarding  the  comic  actors  who  appear  in  the  Soteric  lists 
and  a  comparison  of  their  names  with  those  found  in  the  Delian  and 
Athenian  inscriptions  lead  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the  DeUan 
lists  also  give  only  the  protagonists  (leaders  of  separate  comic  troupes), 
but  all  of  them,  not  the  victors  alone,  while  the  Delphic  lists  give 
all  the  persons  in  each  troupe,  not  the  protagonists  alone.  Now  since 
the  comic  and  tragic  companies  in  the  Soteric  inscriptions  all  consist  of 
three  performers  who  are  classed  as  kw/xwBol  and  rpaywSoL,  with  a  trainer 
and  flute-player  for  each  company,  we  have  in  this  one  instance  documen- 
tary evidence  that  in  the  period  of  the  artists'  guilds,  outside  of  Athens  at 
least,  three  actors  and  their  assistants  constituted  the  normal  dramatic 
company. 2  But  the  guild  was  prepared  to  furnish  more  actors  if  neces- 
sary; the  tragic  troupe  belonging  to  the  Ptolemais  guild  consisted  of  one 
Tpayu)86<;  and  four  crwaycovtcrTac,  Ditt.  Orient.  Gr.  Insc,  No.  51. 

The  literary  evidence  for  a  three-actor  law  for  this  period  may  be 
disposed  of  briefly.  It  should  be  observed  at  this  point  that  nowhere  is 
it  explicitly  stated  that  three  actors  were  used  to  perform  a  play.  How- 
ever, there  are  several  passages  in  late  writers  which  indicate  that,  in  the 
writer's  time,  or  conceivably,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  even  in  the  classical 
period,  the  usual  number  of  actors  employed  in  the  production  of  a  play  was 
three.  These  passages  may  be  classified  as  follows:  (i)  Actors  are  spoken 
of  as  appearing  in  more  than  one  role  in  the  same  play.  It  is  not  implied, 
however,  that  three  actors  carried  all  the  roles,  but  only  that  doubling  of 

'  Sauppe  Com.  de  collegiis  seen.,  p.  10.  I  use  the  text  of  Baunack  SGDI.  II 
2563-66,  with  the  improvements  suggested  by  Capps  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  XXXI 
(1900),  pp.  124  ff. 

2  The  details  of  this  matter  the  writer  expects  to  give  later  in  an  article,  "The 
Number  of  the  Dramatic  Company  in  the  Period  of  the  Technitae." 


70  RULE   OF  THREE  ACTORS 

roles  was  practiced.^  (2)  The  invention  of  the  term  "parachoregema"  in 
appHcation  to  an  "extra,"  i.  e.,  a  fourth  speaking  actor,  is  based  upon  the 
idea  of  an  "extra  expense."  If  more  than  three  actors  were  employed  no 
such  extra  expense  would  be  involved  by  the  use  of  a  fourth  speaking  person 
on  the  scene.  The  use  of  the  term  therefore  imphes,  for  the  period  in  which 
it  occurs,  the  usual  limitation  to  three  of  the  number  of  actors  employed." 
(3)  In  a  few  passages  the  classification  of  actors  into  three  classes  implies  a 
limitation  of  their  number  in  a  performance. 3  That  such  dramatic  com- 
panies of  three  belong  to  the  period  of  the  actors'  guilds,  or  are  traveling 
troupes  under  the  management  of  the  rex  gregis  or  protagonist,  is  evidenced, 
not  only  by  the  uniformly  late  date  of  the  notices  themselves,  but  also  by 
incidental  allusions  in  these  notices  that  admit  of  no  other  explanation. 

I  Lucian  Necyom.  16:  the  actor  who  has  been  playing  the  role  of  a  king  li.er'' 
6\lyov  oIk4t7]s  wporfkdev,  virb  tov  woiriToO  K€Ke\eviJ.4vos-  Aristides  I,  p.  351  Dind. :  (rrpa- 
TiuiTTjs  iJ.eTe<TKeija<XTai  6s  dprlajs  Tjv  yeutpyds.  Schol.  Aesch.  Choeph.  899:  /xeTeffKevaffTai 
6  i^dyyeXos  els  Ilv\ddr}i',  Hva  p.7]  5'  \iyoxnv.  Schol.  Eur.  Phoen.  93  states  that  Antigone 
does  not  appear  with  the  Paedagogue  at  88,  because  time  must  be  given  for  the  pro- 
tagonist (who  as  locasta  has  spoken  the  prologue,  exit  87)  to  reappear  as  Antigone 
(enter  ca.  100).  But  only  two  persons  are  present  in  this  scene.  The  scholiast 
evidently  feels  that  the  leading  actor  should  carry  the  part  of  both  Antigone  and 
locasta.  This  may  have  been  the  practice  in  his  day.  Schol.  Soph.  O.  T.  147 
explains  the  exit  of  the  Priest  at  this  point:  besides  having  finished  his  business,  he 
must  leave  virkp  tov  xwpai'  elcoi  eript^  viroKpir^.  But  in  the  following  scene  only  two 
are  present;  the  actor  of  the  Priest  would  not  be  needed  until  316. 

»It  occurs,  of  a  fourth  speaking  actor,  only  three  times:  Poll.  iv.  109,  el  di 
rirapTos  viroKpiTr]s  ■n-apa.<pdiy^aiTo,To\JTo  irapaxop'ltyqix.aL  dvoixd^erai;  schol.  Aesch.  Prow. 
12  Bia  is  called  a  "parachoregema,"  and  in  schol.  Aristoph.  Pax.  114  the  children  of 
Trygaeus.  In  the  other  two  occurrences  of  the  word  it  is  used  for  non-speaking 
supernumeraries  (Areopagites)  or  supplementary  choEUS  (Frogs).  That  irapaxoprjyTitxa 
is  derived  from  xop'77"''  in  its  derived  non-technical  sense  of  "spend"  and  was 
applied  to  the  presentation  of  plays  in  the  commercial  period  of  the  guilds,  I  have 
tried  to  show  in  Classical  Philology  II,  pp.  387  flf.  The  extensive  use  of  the  term  is 
modern. 

3  The  three  actors  according  to  schol.  Dem.  De  pace  58.  6  (above,  p.  34,  n.  3) 
were,  in  classical  times,  viroKpiT-fis,  SevrepayuviaTi^s,  and  TpLTayajPKXT-j^s;  later  on 
rpayifiSds  or  /cw/x(f)S6s  replaced  vrroKpiT'fis  as  the  designation  of  the  protagonist.  This 
seems  to  be  the  gist  of  the  meaning  of  the  corrupt  passage;  the  first  statement,  as  we 
have  seen,  does  not  hold  good  for  the  classical  period.  Pollux  iv.  124  (above,  p.  32, 
n.  3)  assigns  the  three  doors  of  the  scena  to  the  protagonist,  deuteragonist,  and  t6 
eireX^ffTarov  irpdffuirov;  but  the  third  phrase,  and  the  fact  that  the  role  of  king,  who 
used  the  central  door,  was  often  not  borne  by  the  leading  actor,  suggests  that  he  had 
in  mind  the  significance  of  the  doors  in  relation  to  characters — as  indeed  Vitruvius 
v.  6.  3  makes  clear.  Plotinus  iii.  2  (above,  p.  32,  n.  4)  also  seems  to  refer  to  the 
limited  number  three,  and  this  may  be  true  also  of  other  references  which  have  been 
given  on  pp.  32  ff.,  passim. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  7I 

Plutarch  Mor.  816  /  (above,  p.  32,  n.  i)  speaks  of  the  humble  bearing  on 
the  stage  of  a  famous  protagonist,  a  Theodorus  or  a  Polus,  toward  the  cheap 
"hireling "who  carried  the  third  role, if  the  latter  happened  to  play  the  king.* 
So  Pollux  iv.  124  (above,  p.  32,  n.  3)  speaks  of  the  "cheapest"  role  after 
referring  to  protagonist  and  deuteragonist.  We  are  at  once  struck  by  the 
resemblance  of  the  custom  here  referred  to,  of  the  protagonist  hiring  his 
troupe,  to  that  to  which  Demosthenes  alludes  when  he  refers  to  the  traveling 
company  of  which  Aeschines  was  a  member.  The  organization  under 
which  the  dramas  were  brought  out  at  Athens  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, the  provision  made  for  supplying  the  needs  of  the  poet-manager,  were 
of  an  entirely  different  nature.  Sophocles  and  Euripides  did  not  write  their 
plays  with  reference  to  the  purely  economic  or  commercial  conditions  under 
which  plays  were  represented  by  the  privately  managed  traveling  troupes 
or  the  troupes  sent  out  on  the  road  by  the  guilds.  Later  writers  knew  at 
first  hand  only  these  later  conditions,  and  were  acquainted  with  the  earlier 
conditions  only  through  antiquarian  studies. 

Scholars  have  employed  documents  of  the  technitae  period,  particu- 
larly the  Soteric  inscriptions,  as  evidence  for  similar  conditions  at  Athens 
in  the  classical  period;  they  have  used  the  technitae  rule  of  three,  a  non- 
Athenian  institution,  to  prove  an  Athenian  institution;  they  have  applied 
statements  of  late  writers  to  Athenian  practices  of  the  fifth  century; 
they  have  made  no  distinction  between  the  different  circumstances  under 
which  in  various  localities  plays  were  brought  out  in  these  different  periods. 
But  w'e  are  not  justified  in  transferring  to  the  early  Athenian  drama  the 
practices  of  actors'  guilds,  which  grew  up  under  wholly  different  conditions. 
This  would  be  as  unreasonable  and  as  unscientific  as  not  to  distinguish 
between  the  performances  of  the  early  Elizabethan  Interludes  by  strolling 
companies  and  those  of  the  fully  developed  drama  of  Shakespeare  and  his 
contemporaries  in  London  theatres.  The  different  conditions  under  which 
plays  of  this  period  (i 550-1650)  were  produced  are  clearly  reflected  in  the 
dramas  themselves.  A  brief  consideration  of  the  dramatic  productions  of 
the  Elizabethan  period  will  enable  one  to  appreciate  more  fully  the  enor- 
mous effect  that  different  economic  conditions  must  have  had  upon  dramatic 
production  in  antiquity. 

Fortunately  we  have  accurate  data*  on  the  production  of  the  Elizabethan 

1  We  think  of  the  parasite  in  Alciphron  Ep.  iii.  35  who  was  hired  by  Lexiphanes 
to  play  the  part  of  servant  in  his  troupe;  only  Lexiphanes  is  represented  as  the  poet 
and  not  as  the  protagonist. 

2  The  main  source  of  my  information  has  been  the  plays  of  the  period.  I  have 
also  foimd  very  serviceable  Chambers  Mediaeval  Stage,  Vol.  II,  and  especially  Collier 
History  of  English  Poetry,  Vol.  III. 


72  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

Strolling  companies  and  the  economic  conditions  under  which  they  con- 
ducted their  trade.  According  to  the  custom  of  the  time  noblemen'  had 
their  own  players  as  retainers.  Under  this  arrangement  the  actors  received 
a  certain  fee  annually,  but,  when  not  needed  at  court,  were  permitted  to 
take  the  road.  They  thus  traveled  on  foot  from  village  to  village,  from 
country-seat  to  country-seat,  receiving  uncertain  rewards  for  their  exhi- 
bitions. The  income  from  performances  outside  of  the  metropolis  was  very 
meager.  Henslowe^  stipulates  with  his  "hirelings"  that  should  the  com- 
pany go  into  the  country  they  should  play  at  half  price.  The  same  motive 
that  led  to  the  reduction  of  wages  of  individual  actors  also  led  to  the  division 
of  the  companies  when  tours  were  made  into  the  provinces.  This  conclu- 
sion is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  average  troupe  of  the  noblemen  was  com- 
posed of  ten  or  twelve  persons,  while  the  normal  traveling  troupe  was  four 
or  five. 

The  new  conditions  under  which  plays  were  given  reacted  upon  the 
structure  of  the  drama.  The  long  cyclical  Miracles,  which  demanded  a 
very  large  number  of  performers,  were  gradually  supplanted  by  the  Inter- 
lude. The  Interlude  dealt  ordinarily  with  short  episodes,  required  a 
comparatively  small  cast,  and  was  far  more  practical  and  easy  of  representa- 
tion. It  was  written  especially  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  small  troupe, 
since  economy  in  traveling  and  the  inconvenience  of  crowding  the  hall  or 
private  house  both  operated  to  put  a  limit  to  the  number  of  performers. 
Four  mens  and  a  boy  constituted  the  normal  traveling  troupe.  A  very 
considerable  number  of  the  extant  Interludes  contain  lists  of  dramatis 
personae  accompanied  by  an  indication  as  to  how,  by  the  doubling  of 
roles,  the  cast  may  be  brought  within  reasonable  compass.  This  method 
began  with  the  Craxton^  play  of  the  Sacrament,  which  has  twelve  parts, 
but  "IX  may  play  it  at  ease."  Bales  Three  Laws  claims  to  require  five 
actors,  and  the  Lusty  Juventus^  only  four.     Scores  of  the  early  Elizabethan 

1  See  Collier  loc.  ciL,  p.  440. 

2  Cf.  Collier,  pp.  85  and  438.  The  diary  of  Philip  Henslowe  begins  ca.  1570 
and  is  one  of  the  most  important  sources  for  the  stage  of  this  period. 

3  Cf.  Sir  Thomas  Moore:  A  Morality  (Shakespeare  Society,  p.  56).  A  player 
enters  to  make  a  bargain  with  Moore  to  furnish  a  performance  for  his  guests.  Moore: 
"How  manie  are  ye?"  i.  e.,  in  your  troupe.  Player:  "Foure  men  and  a  boy,  Sir." 
Moore:  "But  one  boy?  Then,  I  see  there  's  but  few  women  in  the  play."  Player: 
"Three,  my  Lord,  Dame  Science,  Lady  Vanitie,  and  Wisdom  she  herself."  Moore: 
"  And  one  boy  play  them  all  ?     bi'r  lady,  hee's  loden." 

4  Manly  Pre-Shakespearean  Drama  I,  p.  276. 
s  Dodsley's  Old  Eng.  Plays  (Hazlitt,  Vol.  II) 


IN   CLASSICAL   GREEK    DRAMA  73 

Interludes  have  similar  indications,  as,  for  instance.  New  Custom^  (iS73)> 
"eleven  parts  divided  for  foure  actors;"  Trial  oj  Treasure  (1567),  the 
roles  arranged  for  five  actors,  i.  e.,  four  men  and  a  boy;  Like  Will  to  Like 
(Hazlitt,  Vol.  Ill)  has  the  same  arrangement;  Life  and  Repentaunce  oj 
Mary  Magdalene  (1566)  has  fourteen  characters,  but  "Foure  may  easily 
play  this  Interlude."^  Many  of  the  Moralities  were  also  contrived  for 
six  actors:  Wit  and  Wisdom  (1579),  a  cast  of  nineteen  characters;  The 
Story  of  King  Daryiis  (Brandl  Quellen  des  weltlichen  Dramas,  p.  358), 
twenty  characters,  "syxe  persons  may  easily  play  it;"  History  oj  Horestes, 
twenty-four  persons  "divided  for  vi  to  playe;"  The  Conflict  oj  Con- 
science (1581),  "the  actors'  names,  divided  into  six  parts  most  convenient 
for  such  as  be  disposed  either  to  shew  this  comedie  in  private  houses  or 
otherwise."  The  comedy  Miscedorus  (1598),  fifteen  characters,  "eight 
persons  may  easily  play  it;"  The  Fayre  Mayde  oj  Exchange,  twenty-two 
roles,  "eleaven  may  easily  acte  this  comedy;"  Camhises  (Manly,  p.  16), 
thirty-seven  characters  arranged  for  eight  actors. 

These  examples  suffice  to  show  the  situation.  It  was  expensive  as  well 
as  inconvenient  for  a  large  troupe  of  actors  to  travel.  The  country  audience 
was  small  and  poor,  and  there  was  no  public  hall  or  private  house  suitable 
for  large  companies.  Thus  it  became  necessary  to  reduce  each  company 
to  the  smallest  possible  number.  This  necessity  gave  rise  to  the  Interlude, 
which  was  written  and  contrived  to  meet  the  economic  conditions  and 
convenience  of  the  traveling  companies.  The  reduction  of  performers 
and  consequently  the  doubling  of  parts  was  the  direct  and  necessary 
result  of  the  material  conditions  under  which  the  companies  plied  their 
profession. 

The  formula  on  the  title-page  of  many  of  the  plays,  "foure  or  syxe  may 
or  can  play  it,"  was  of  course  a  direct  appeal  to  managers  of  strolling  com- 
panies, but  it  also  impUes  that  a  larger  number  of  actors  would  be  desirable. 
In  fact,  we  know  that  in  many  London  and  court  performances  of  Inter- 
ludes the  doubhng  of  roles  was  rare.  In  the  court  performance  Lyly's 
Campaspe^  (1584)  the  companies  were  united,  thus  avoiding  the  doubling 
of  parts.  When  economy  was  not  an  important  item  and  other  practical 
matters  did  not  interfere,  parts  were  never  doubled. 

The  custom  of  combining  parts  for  one  actor  ceased  almost  entirely 

1  Dodsley's  Old  Eng.  Plays  (Hazlitt,  Vol.  III). 

2  Edited  by  Carpenter  (Chicago,  1903),  who  says  in  his  Introduction:  "'Foure' 
is  probably  a  misprint  for  'five,'  since  in  vss.  423-812,  1629-1867  five  speaking  char- 
acters are  on  the  scene  at  once." 

3  Gayley  Representative  Eng.  Comedies. 


74  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

with  Shakespeare  and  his  contemporaries.  In  a  preliminary  page  of  the 
great  First  Folio  of  Shakespeare's  plays  are  enumerated  the  names  of  the 
actors  that  composed  his  company.  Including  himself  there  are  twenty- 
six  men.  This  would,  of  course,  make  the  practice  unnecessary  to  any 
great  extent.  Besides  the  actors  in  his  regular  company,  Shakespeare 
doubtless  had  a  very  large  number  of  apprentices  and  supernumeraries 
who  could  be  called  upon  for  minor  roles. 

Shakespeare's  activity  was  confined  almost  exclusively  to  the  metropo- 
lis; here  his  actors  lived;  and,  as  is  true  of  all  local  and  stock  companies, 
the  expense  and  inconvenience  of  traveling  was  not  a  consideration.  Suc- 
cess in  financing  his  company  and  the  large  patronage  of  the  city  put 
Shakespeare's  company  upon  an  economical  basis  totally  different  from 
that  of  traveling  companies. 

The  same  principle  may  be  illustrated  in  the  modern  stage  conditions 
of  England  and  America.  Practically  no  theatre  in  either  of  these  countries 
is  worked  today  on  any  but  the  capitalist  principle.  The  theatrical  man- 
ager's first  and  last  aim  is  naturally  to  secure  the  highest  possible  remunera- 
tion for  his  invested  capital.  He  has  no  objection  to  the  artistic  drama, 
provided  he  can  draw  substantial  profit  from  it,  but  his  object  is  to  benefit 
his  purse.  The  pleasure  that  carries  farthest  and  brings  to  him  the  largest 
paying  audience  is  his  ideal  stock-in-trade.  The  practical  manager,  in 
seeking  pecuniary  profit  from  his  ventures,  naturally  strives  to  get  plays 
that  may  be  economically  staged;  he  employs  good  or  bad  actors  in  pro- 
portion as  it  will  increase  or  diminish  the  sale  of  tickets.  He  must  conduct 
his  business  on  a  sound  financial  basis.  Thus  when  the  company  leaves 
the  large  city  for  an  extended  tour  over  the  states,  to  avoid  the  heavy 
financial  risks  involved  in  the  transportation  of  a  large  troupe,  the  size 
of  the  original  comany  is  usually  greatly  reduced ;  all  extras  and  unneces- 
saries  are  left  behind;  the  scenery  is  not  so  elaborate;  rarely  is  a  play  so 
well  staged  in  the  town  or  small  city  as  in  the  larger  city.  The  manager 
dispenses  with  everything  that  does  not  materially  affect  the  production  of 
his  play.  Compare  our  theatre,  financed  by  money-getting  individuals, 
with  the  great  theatres  of  Europe.  The  Comedie  Franfais  was  established 
by  a  king;  the  Paris  opera  runs  behind  every  year,  notwithstanding  the 
large  annual  subsidy  from  the  state ;  the  theatres  of  Austria  and  Germany 
were  founded  and  are  protected  by  royal  favor.  At  least  two  dozen  thea- 
tres in  the  German  Empire  are  endowed  by  the  Emperor.  Smaller  princes 
help ;  public  taxes  are  used  for  the  drama.  What  has  been  the  result  ? 
The  facts  speak  for  themselves.  A  comparison  of  the  drama  of  England 
and  America  with  that  of  Europe  shows  the  pernicious  effect  of  a  com- 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  75 

mercialized  stage.     When  and  where  has  the  acted  drama  ever  reached  its 
height  without  some  non-commercial  backing  ? 

In  modern  times  and  in  the  Elizabethan  period  economy  and  con- 
venience have  determined  the  manner  of  dramatic  production.  What 
happens  in  one  age  may  happen  in  any  other  under  like  conditions.  The 
practices  of  the  strolling  companies  of  the  Elizabethan  period  bears  a 
striking  resemblance  to  the  wandering  troupes  of  Greece  in  so  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  these  troupes  extends ;  the  fully  developed  drama  at  London 
to  the  Athenian  drama  of  the  classical  period,  to  the  advantage  of  the 
latter.  The  parallel  proves  nothing,  but  is  interesting  as  showing  that  the 
laws  of  economy  in  similar  situations  produce  like  results  in  all  ages. 

VI.     A  REDISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  ROLES  IN  SELECTED  PLAYS 

It  was  my  original  plan  that  the  constructive  part  of  this  treatise  should 
be  a  redistribution  of  the  roles  in  all  the  plays  in  accordance  with  principles 
suggested  in  Section  IV.  Obviously  such  an  undertaking  would  be  futile 
and  worthless  so  far  as  it  should  propose  to  represent  with  any  degree  of 
exactness  what  actually  took  place  in  the  classical  period  at  Athens.  Only 
the  professional  Greek  stage-manager,  thoroughly  conversant  with  the 
personality  and  capacity  of  his  actors,  would  be  competent  to  arrange 
the  staging  of  each  individual  play.  The  versatility  of  individual  actors 
would  determine  in  some  cases  the  doubling  of  parts,  and  many  other 
considerations  would  have  to  be  taken  into  account  in  specific  cases. 
Each  manager  would  distribute  the  parts  in  individual  cases  according  to 
the  material  at  his  disposal.  Even  expert  managers  might  not  agree  on 
certain  details.  However,  it  has  seemed  advisable  to  make  a  division 
of  roles  in  a  few  plays  as  a  means  of  illustrating  certain  principles  which  I 
follow,  and  which  I  am  convinced  are  of  universal  application  in  the 
grouping  of  characters  to  be  assigned  to  one  actor.  In  the  absence  of 
positive  evidence  from  antiquity  there  is  perhaps  no  better  method  of 
ascertaining  the  probable  practice  of  the  Greeks  in  this  regard  than  to 
refer  to  the  practice  of  modern  managers.  In  the  ordinary  modern  play, 
as  produced  in  the  best  theatres,  there  is  practically  no  doubling  of  parts. 
It  is  not  uncommon,  however,  in  Shakespearean  performances  for  one 
actor  to  impersonate  more  than  one  character.*  The  same  actor  fre- 
quently  plays   Polonius   and   first    Grave-digger   in    Hamlet.     The   two 

I  Sometimes  in  Macbeth  Duncan  and  the  Physician  are  combined.  Everything 
would  favor  such  a  doubhng.  Duncan  is  murdered  early  in  the  play;  the  Physician 
comes  on  only  once  at  the  end  of  the  play,  in  a  night  scene,  and  speaks  but  a  few  words. 


^6  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

characters  are  so  admirably  adapted  to  the  same  type  of  an  actor  that  a 
performer  for  each  part  is  quite  unnecessary  and  would  be  an  economic 
waste.  I  recall  several  recent  productions  of  Shakespeare  by  the  Ben 
Greet  players  of  London.  His  company  of  twenty-seven  actors  would 
present  Henry  II,  which  has  a  cast  of  some  forty  characters.  Mr.  Greet 
managed  his  company  strictly  on  a  money-making  basis,  and  was  not 
disposed  to  employ  an  extra  actor  if  one  actor  could  play  more  than  one 
role  well.  An  actor  would  frequently  carry  some  three  or  four  parts,  but 
minor  parts  such  as  messengers,  forresters,  and  other  insignificant  roles. 
Characters  that  appeared  but  once,  whose  presence  upon  the  stage  was 
farthest  apart,  and  those  whose  makeup  and  costumes  were  quite  different, 
were  combined  that  the  spectator  might  not  detect  that  the  same  one  was 
impersonating  two  or  more  different  characters.  This  is  a  most  important 
consideration.  In  serious  drama  the  audience  must  not  be  conscious  that 
one  actor  is  playing  two  parts,  for  this  destroys  the  illusion  and  thus 
detracts  from  the  effect.  It  cannot  be  avoided,  however,  if  an  actor  is  on 
the  stage  very  much.  Hence  the  important  parts  of  a  play  are  never 
doubled,  nor  those  characters  of  marked  personalities,  or  of  peculiar 
physical  characteristics. 

To  what  extent  the  custom  of  combining  parts  prevailed  at  Athens  in 
the  classical  period  cannot  be  determined.  But  it  is  quite  unnecessary 
in  many  plays  to  assume  a  separate  actor  for  each  part,  and  in  some  cases 
it  would  seem  to  be  sheer  economic  waste,  for  unimportant  characters  may 
frequently  be  doubled  without  causing  offense  to  the  audience,  or  even 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  escape  notice.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  reasonably 
certain  that  there  were  scores  of  second-grade  actors  and  apprentices  in 
the  profession  at  Athens  who  were  available  for  minor  roles.  All  actors 
begin  by  playing  minor  parts,  and  doubtless  as  apprentices  they  regarded 
it  as  a  special  favor  and  a  distinction  to  play  a  part  at  the  Great  Festival. 
In  view  of  this,  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  habit  of  doubling  parts  existed 
to  any  great  extent,  if  at  all. 

In  the  plays  chosen  for  illustration,  I  proceed  on  the  assumption  that 
a  manager  would  use  at  least  a  sufficient  number  of  actors  to  produce  his 
play  in  a  creditable  fashion,  but  that  he  might  desire  to  double  roles  where 
the  effect  would  not  be  bad.  Accordingly,  only  such  roles  are  grouped  as 
seem  peculiarly  adapted  to  one  actor.  The  following  principles  are  thus 
observed,  with  a  degree  of  flexibility  to  suit  individual  cases: 

1.  The  combination  of  male  and  female  roles  is  to  be  avoided. 

2.  Only  characters  of  Hke  age  should  be  grouped;  at  least  it  is  important 
to  avoid  doubling  extremes  in  age. 


IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  77 

3.  Important  characters  in  a  play  require  separate  actors  for  each. 

4.  Other  characters  whose  personaHties  are  not  too  keenly  deUneated 
may  be  doubled  under  the  following  conditions :  (a)  if  the  order  of  appear- 
ance of  the  characters  is  supplementary;  (b)  if  these  characters  are  not  of 
too  miscellaneous  a  nature;  (r)  if  their  appearances  upon  the  scene  are 
far  apart;  (d)  if,  finally,  the  doubling  would  escape  the  attention  of  the 
audience. 

ELECTRA  OF  SOPHOCLES 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR   THREE   ACTORS 

1  Electra  86-1384;  1395-1507  Total  w.  644 

2  \  Orestes  1-85;  1098-1375;  142 1-1440;  1465-1507  (     Total  vv  260 
}  Clytaemestra  516-803  \  '      ^ 

iChrysothemis  328-471;  871-1057  ) 

Paedagogus  1-85;  660-803;  1325-1375  [    Total  vv.  341 

Aegisthus  144-15 10  ) 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   FOUR   ACTORS 

I     Electra  Total  w.  644 


Hclf;rhersfTota,w..6, 
3    Orestes  Total  w.  159 

J  Paedagogus      f  Total  w.  184 
^  I  Aegisthus  \  ^ 


The  division  among  four  actors  is  by  no  means  perfect,  but  it  avoids  the 
doubling  of  male  and  female  roles.  I  am  not  sure  that  a  manager  would  not 
have  used  even  a  fifth  actor  in  this  play.  Certainly  Clytaemustra  and  Chryso- 
themis  would  require  separate  actors  under  any  modern  system  of  stage  manage- 
ment. The  bold,  resolute  queen,  and  the  wavering,  amenable  girl  are  quite 
diff^erent  in  character.  The  order  of  their  appearance  upon  the  scene  would  also 
favor  the  employment  of  another  actor:  Chrysothemis  328-471;  Clytaemestra 
516-803;  Chrysothemis  871-1057.  The  impersonator  of  the  aged  Paedagogus 
could  easily  play  the  unimportant  part  of  Aegisthus.  The  doubling  of  Chryso- 
themis' part  and  that  of  the  aged  Paedagogus  would  be  intolerable.  The 
employment  of  a  fourth  actor,  then,  would  be  necessary,  a  fifth  desirable. 

OEDIPUS  TYRANNUS 

DISTRIBUTION'    FOR  THREE   ACTORS 

I     Oedipus  Total  vv.  646 

1  Priest  1-57  \ 

Teiresias  300-462  j  ^^ 

locasta  634-862;  911-1072  t 

Servant  of  Laius  1 123-1 185  / 

I  My  distribution  is  the  same  as  that  of  Hermann,  Richtcr,  and  Lachmann  except 
that  they  assigned  to  the  second  actor  also  the  part  of  the  Exangelus. 


78 


RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 


(  Creon  87-150;  513-677;  1422-1523 

3  <  Messenger  924-1085;  1110-1185 

(  Exangelus  1225-1296 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR   FIVE   ACTORS 


Total  vv.  260 


Oedipus 
locasta 
Creon 
Teiresias 
Priest 

Servant  of  Laius 
S  Messenger 
^  I  Exangelus 


Total  w.  646 
Total  w.  122 
Total  w.  133 

Total  w.  146 

Total  vv.  127 


The  combination  of  locasta's  role  with  that  of  the  Priest,  Servant  of  Laius, 
or  Exangelus,  is  obviously  inappropriate.  A  separate  actor  is  desirable  for  the 
part,  and,  indeed,  an  actor  of  considerable  psychological  insight  is  necessary  to 
interpret  it.  About  the  other  characters  I  am  not  so  sure.  The  Priest  might  be 
combined  with  Teiresias  to  which  may  also  be  joined  the  Old  Servant  who  appears 
at  the  end  of  the  play.  The  three  characters  are,  to  be  sure,  quite  different, 
especially  does  the  Old  Servant  require  a  dififerent  style  of  play,  but  the  part  is 
not  long.  Old  age  is  common  to  all,  and  one  voice  with  slight  variation  would 
fit.  The  Priest  and  Teiresias  are  admirably  suited  to  the  same  actor  so  far  as 
doubling  is  ever  desirable.  An  actor  of  ordinary  versatility  could  also,  I  think, 
play  the  Old  Shepherd  successfully.  The  parts  are  supplementary.  Priest  (1-157); 
Teiresias  (300-462);  Servant  (1123-1185).  The  Messenger  and  Exangelus  are 
of  the  same  type  and  may  be  doubled. 

Every  character  in  the  Oedipus  is,  in  my  judgment,  marked  by  a  distinct 
individuality,  and  the  ideal  distribution  would  be  an  actor  for  every  part.  In 
this  case  a  satisfactory  assignment  of  the  parts  would  require  a  minute  analysis 
of  each  character  with  reference  to  the  physical  qualities  and  mental  disposition 
best  adapted  to  interpret  that  part. 


OEDIPUS  COLONEUS 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   THREE   ACTORS 

Oedipus  1-1555  ) 

Messenger  15  80- 16  70  >  Total  vv.  704 

Theseus  1 751-1779  ) 

Antigone  1-504;  720-846;  1099-1555;  1670-1779  (   „      , 

Theseus  887-1043  \    ^otal  w.  247 

'  Stranger  36-80 

jlsmene  324-59°;  lOQ^-iSSS;  1670-1779 

j  Theseus  551-667;  1099-1210;  1500-1555  /   Total  w.  419. 

'  Creon  728-1043 

'Polyneices  1254-1446 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  79 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   SIX  ACTORS 

1  Oedipus  Total  w.  600 

2  Theseus  Total  w.  200 

3  Antigone  Total  vv.  169 

4  Ismene  Total  w.    69 

s]?r°"  I   Total  vv.  178 

'^  I  Messenger  )  ' 

^Istl^l^ir  5To.a,w..54 

Thus  a  three-actor  distribution  necessitates  the  division  of  Theseus'  role 
{supra,  p.  45).  Wecklein'  increases  the  difficulty  by  splitting  Ismene's  part 
also.  TeufFel  Rhein.  Mus.  N.  F.  IX,  p.  137,  suggested  that  the  supernumerary 
that  played  the  part  of  Ismene  from  1076  to  1555  also  represented  her  from 
1670  to  end,  thus  making  it  possible  for  the  third  actor  to  play  the  Messenger 
and  Theseus  in  the  last  scene.  This  would  simplify  the  situation  somewhat,  but 
does  not  avoid  the  introduction  of  a  fourth  actor.  A  "parachoregema"  in  such 
a  case  is  merely  another  name  for  a  fourth  actor.  The  distinction  commonly 
drawn  between  "hypocrites"  and  "parachoregema"  is  a  modem  invention  due 
to  an  assumed  theory  that  only  three  "hypocritae"  could  be  used  in  the  presenta- 
tion of  a  play.  No  such  distinction  existed  in  the  classical  period;  "hypocrites" 
was  applicable  to  any  performer  that  played  a  speaking  part.^ 

It  seems  quite  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Oedipus  Coloneus  was 
originally  actually  produced  with  three  actors  even  if,  by  the  exercise  of  ingenuity, 
it  was  possible  to  do  it.  Such  an  artificial  arrangement  forces  the  leading  actor, 
who  was  presumably  a  man  of  marked  personality,  and  who  is  continually  upon 
the  scene  to  1555,  to  retire  at  this  point,  change  dress,  and  reappear  at  1580  in 
the  character  of  the  Messenger,  i.  e.,  within  twenty-five  verses.  Soon  after  the 
exit  of  the  Messenger  the  same  actor  must  come  on  as  Theseus.  The  part  would 
evidently  be  overloaded,  exceeding  700  verses,  while  the  other  actors  have  about 
680  together. 

The  impersonator  of  Antigone  1-846,  within  forty  verses  appears  in  the  part 
of  Theseus  887-1043,  reappears  as  Antigone  1099-1779.  Such  a  doubling  is 
especially  inappropriate. 

The  third  actor  must  play  the  following  characters  in  the  order  indicated: 
Stranger  36-80;  Ismene  324-509;  Theseus  551-667;   Creon  728-1043;  Theseus 

1  Oed.  Col.,  Einl.,  p.  8;  he  distributes  the  roles  thus:  I.  Oedipus,  Ismene  1670 
to  end.  II.  Stranger,  Ismene  to  507,  Theseus  except  887-1043,  Creon,  Polyneices, 
Messenger.     III.  Antigone,    Theseus   887-1043.     IV.  Ismene   (mute)    1096-1555. 

2  In  modem  times  our  term  "actor"  is  not  restricted  to  a  speaking  person;  even 
a  mute  may  be  called  "actor."  In  the  classical  period  at  Athens  this  seems  not  to 
have  been  the  case;  cf.  Welcker  Aeschylus  Trilogie,  p.  118:  "Nur  das  Sprechen  den 
Schauspieler   macht;"    Hippocrates:    wJ  yap  iKeivoi  (mutes)  cx^M*  M^"  fct^  ffroXrjv  kuI 

irpdffUTTOV  VTTOKpiTOV  iXOVfflV,  OVK  eiffl   8^  VirOKpLTaL. 


8o  RULE   OF  THREE   ACTORS 

1099-1210;  Polyneices  1254-1446;  Theseus  1500-55;  Ismene  1670-1779.  The 
constant  alternating  between  the  part  of  Theseus,  Ismene,  and  the  other  characters 
makes  a  very  undesirable  combination  for  one  actor. 

Attention  has  been  called  in  another  place  (supra,  p.  46)  to  the  objections 
to  the  splitting  of  Theseus'  part.  To  sum  up:  The  over-burdening  of  the  part 
of  the  protagonist,  the  necessity  of  grouping  unsuitable  characters  for  each  actor, 
and  the  interlaced  order  in  which  these  characters  appear,  the  division  of 
Theseus'  part,  will  convince  the  fair-minded  person  that  three  actors  are  quite 
inadequate  for  even  a  poor  production  of  the  play. 

In  the  six-actor  distribution,  I  have  doubled  the  parts  whose  appearance 
upon  the  scene  are  farthest  apart.  The  spectator  would  be  less  likely  to  detect 
that  the  same  actor  was  playing  two  or  more  roles.  With  five  actors  the  manager 
would  probably  double  the  parts  of  Theseus  and  Stranger  for  one  actor,  Creon, 
Polyneices,  and  Messenger  for  another.     An  apprentice  probably  played  Ismene. 

IPHIGENEIA  AT  AULIS 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR  THREE   ACTORS 

ilphigeneia  607-690;  1211-1510  \ 

Old  Man  1-163;  303-318;  855-896  ^^^^j  ^ 

Messenger  I  414-439  ( 

Messenger  II  1532-1613  / 

2  5  Clytaemestra  607-750;  801-1035;  1098-1626  {  ^^^^^j  ^       g 

(  Menelaus  303-542  \ 

(  Agamemnon  1-163;  317-543;  607-750;  ) 

3 -j  1106-1275;  1621-1626  >•  Total  vv.  487 

(Achilles  801-1035;  1345-1433  ) 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   FIVE   ACTORS 

1  Iphigeneia  Total  w.  222 

2  Agamemnon  Total  w.  326 

3  Clytaemestra  Total  w.  279. 
(  Old  Man  ) 

4  \  ist  Messenger         V  Total  w.  1 75 


(  2d  Messenger 

sjSi"  S  Total  w.,_58 

In  the  division  for  five  actors  several  objectionable  features  of  the  three-actor 
scheme  are  avoided,  such  as  the  forcing  of  one  actor  to  play  Old  Man  1-63,  then 
Messenger  I  414-39,  Iphigeneia  607-90,  Old  Man  again  855-96,  Iphigeneia 
1211-1510,  and,  finally.  Messenger  II  1532-1613.  The  constant  change  of  an 
actor  from  the  Messenger  and  Old  Man  would  be  ridiculous,  and  no  decent  per- 
formance of  the  play  would  tolerate  such  an  ineptitude.  Agamemnon's  character 
is  revealed  in  subtle  moods  and  situations  which  render  the  part  difficult  to  inter- 
pret. His  desponding  anxiety  and  wavering  mind,  the  struggle  between  filial 
affection  and  patriotism,  the  fear  of  a  wife's  anger  and  the  army's,  demand  an 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA 


actor  of  versatility  and  psychological  insight.  The  chivalrous  and  natural 
part  of  Achilles  would  thus  be  ill-suited  to  the  actor  of  Agamemnon,  especially 
since  the  roles  are  interlaced  thus:  Agamemnon  607-750;  Achilles  801-1035; 
Agamemnon  1106-1275;  Achilles  1345-1433;  Agamemnon  1621-26.  One 
actor  may  play  Menelaus  and  Achilles  since  Menelaus  appears  only  early  in  the 
play.  The  attitude  of  Menelaus  in  the  latter  part  of  the  scene  when  he  offers  his 
hand  in  cordial  spirit  and  refuses  to  be  a  party  to  the  death  of  the  maiden  would 
put  the  actor  in  the  proper  mood  to  come  on  as  Achilles  later  in  the  play. 

The  Old  Man  and  Messenger  may  be  grouped,  if  necessary.  The  unsuitable 
combination  of  roles  in  subordinate  characters  would  not  be  so  noticeable  as  in 
the  more  prominent  personages. 


ORESTES 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR  THREE   ACTORS 

I     Orestes'         1-806;  1018-1245,  1345-1347;    1506-1693 

Electra  1-315;  844-1352 

Menelaus  356-716;  1554-1693 

SPylades  729-806;  1018-1245;  356-716;  1554-1693 

Hermione  71-125;  1323-1352 

Helena  71-125 

^     Tyndareus;  470-629 

j  Messenger  832-956 

I  Phrygian  1 389-1 536 

\  Apollo  1625-1693 


Total  w.  452 
[  Total  w.  472 


Total  w.  537 


DISTRIBUTION  FOR   SEVEN   ACTORS 

Total  w.  452 
Total  w.  324 
Total  w.  148 
Total  w.  112 
Total  w.  140 


Orestes 

Electra 

Menelaus 

Pylades 

Phrygian 

STyndaeus 
Messenger 
Apollo 
S  Helena 
7  ]  Hermione 


y  Total  w.  234 
[  Total  w.  50 


The  economy  of  the  play  permits  the  doubling  of  the  roles  of  Orestes  and 
Menelaus,  but  the  combination  is  undesirable  for  many  reasons:  Orestes'  part 
is  already  heavy  and  the  addition  of  the  Messenger's  roles  would  overload  it. 
There  is  the  further  objection  offered  by  Richter  (p.  50)  that  it  is  not  permissible 
for  the  protagonist  to  play  intervening  parts  when  his  part  extends  to  the  end  of 

I  Hermann  (p.  54)  adds  Messenger  to  part  of  Orestes,  transfers  Menelaus  to  the 
tritagonist.  Richter  has  the  same  arrangement  as  offered  in  the  table  except  that  he 
considers  Pylades  as  the  inseparable  companion  of  Orestes,  and  so  assumes  a  "para- 
choregema"  for  the  part. 


82  RULE   OF   THREE   ACTORS 

the  play,  as  in  this  case,  Orestes  1-806;  Messenger  832-956;  Orestes  1018  to 
end.  This  pause  should  give  the  actor  a  few  minutes  of  rest.  The  sudden  shift 
from  Orestes  to  Messenger  (806-32)  increases  the  difl&culty.  The  spectator 
could  not  fail  to  see  Orestes  in  the  roles  of  the  Messenger.  As  indicated  in  the 
three-actor  distribution,  one  actor  plays  Electra  and  Menelaus. 

Both  parts  are  important  and  are  so  interwoven  that  the  combination  would 
be  very  offensive;  Electra  1-315;  Menelaus  356-716;  Electra  844-1352;  Mene- 
laus 1554-1693.  Pylades  and  Menelaus  might  be  grouped,  but  this  would  require 
a  "lightning  change"  of  costume,  i.  e.,  during  716-25.  The  Phrygian  demands 
a  separate  actor.  The  part  is  meant  to  be  humorous,  and  has  many  lyrical  verses. 
The  part,  therefore,  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  Fools  of  Shakespeare. 
The  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  Phrygian  make  doubling  with  other  roles 
impossible.'  This  has  been  observed  by  Richter  (p.  61):  "Die  Rolle  des  Phryx 
passt  schlecht  zu  den  iibrigen."  Helena  and  Hermione  are  not  very  important 
and  may  have  been  played  by  a  young  apprentice. 

The  part  of  the  blustering  Old  Man  would  be  ill-suited  for  combination  with 
other  roles  if  he  were  upon  the  scene  very  much,  but  he  appears  only  once  (470- 
629).  The  Messenger  who  is  present  832-956  corresponds  in  age  to  Tyndareus. 
Both  parts  demand  spirited  acting,  the  Messenger  must  give  a  vivid,  spirited 
narrative  in  declamatory  style,  while  Tyndareus'  wrath  calls  for  a  "ranting" 
delivery.  Hence  an  actor  with  little  versatility  could  adapt  his  mood  to  both  parts. 
The  same  actor  might  impersonate  Apollo  (1675-1693). 

PHOENISSAE 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR  THREE  ACTORS 

\  Creon  697-783;  834-985;  1310-1682  )  ^^^^j  ^ 

I  locasta  1-87;  301-637;  1072-1283  \ 

!  Antigone  88-201;  1265-1283;  1485-1763  ) 

Polyneices  261-637  r  Total  w.  394 

Menoeceus  834-1018  ) 

Paedagogus  88-201  \ 

Eteocles  446-637;  690-783  / 

Teiresias  834-959  >  Total  w.  645 

Messenger  1067-1283,  1335-1480  \ 

Oedipus  1539-1763  / 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   SEVEN  ACTORS 

1  locasta  Total  w.  280 

2  Messenger  Total  w.  298 

3  Antigone  Total  w.  220 

4  Creon  Total  w.  149 

5  Eteocles  Total  w.  121 

I  The  actors  of  Fools'  parts  in  Shakespeare  must  be  clever  and  in  a  manner  versa- 
tile, but  I  have  never  seen  one  that  could  interpret  a  serious  part  well. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  83 

,  j  Polyneices  (  T  t  1 

}  Menoeceus  (  '     ' 

(  Paedagogus  ) 

7  •<  Teiresias  j-  Total  w.  226 

(  Oedipus  ) 

A  versatile  actor  might  have  played  both  Eteocles  and  Messenger,  if  a  seventh 
actor  were  not  available.  Obviously  roles  so  widely  different  as  those  of  Creon 
and  locasta  should  not  be  grouped. 

ACHARNIANS 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR   THREE   ACTORS' 

S  Dicaeopolis  1-102;  237-625;  716-833;  864-970; 
/  1003-1142;  1198-1231 

(Persian  Ambassador  65-125 

Theorus  134-166 

Euripides  407-479 

^  s  Lamachus  572-622;  1072-1142;  1090-1226 

I  Megarian  729-835 

I  Boeotian  860-954 

\  Farmer  1018-1036 

Amphitheus  45-129;  176-203 
Daughter  of  Dicaeopolis  245-46 

Sycophant  818-827 

Nicarchus  910-956 

Servant  of  Euripides  395-402 

Servant  of  Lamachus  959-965;  11 74-1189 

Paran3TTiph  1048-105  7 

Messenger  1085-1094 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR  SEVEN  ACTORS 

I     Dicaeopolis 

!  Amphitheus 
Euripides 
Lamachus 
i  Megarian 
Boeotian 
Farmer 
Pseudartabas 
!  Ambassador 
Sycophant 
Theorus 
S  Paranymph 
^  ]  Messenger 

(  Herald 
6  -<  Servant  of  Lamachus 
(  Servant  of  Euripides 
\  Daughter  of  Dicaeopolis 
'  ]  Nicarchus 

I  No  three-actor  distribution  can  include  Herald  43-173;  1000-02;  1070-77; 
Pseudartabas  100-104,  and  the  two  daughters  of  the  Megarian. 


84  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

With  less  than  five  actors  the  Acharnians  could  not  have  been  produced  (supra, 
p.  44).  That  it  could  be  produced  with  five  assumes  that  the  Persian  Ambas- 
sador can  retire,  change  dress,  and  reappear  in  the  charcter  of  Theorus  during 
w.  129-34.  It  would  not  have  been  possible  to  efi'ect  the  change  in  so  short  a 
time.  Separate  actors,  therefore,  are  required  for  Dicaeopolis,  Herald,  Ambas- 
sador, Pseudartabas,  Amphitheus,  and  Theorus.  No  one  of  these  actors  would 
be  suitable  for  the  part  of  the  dwarf,  Nicarchus,  who  is  characterized  909  as 
hikk6s  7a  hcLkos  oItos.  The  impersonator  of  this  role  must  be  of  small  stature. 
Probably  a  boy  was  used,  who  would  also  fit  the  part  of  Dicaeopolis'  daughter. 
For  the  two  daughters  of  the  Megarian  supernumeraries  were  used,  or,  as  Beer 
suggests,  the  same  person  that  played  Nicarchus  and  the  daughter  of  Dicaeopolis. 
These  seven  performers  could  render  a  creditable  presentation  of  the  play. 


FROGS 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR  FOUR  ACTORS 

I 

Dionysus 

3-673;  832-1481 

2  " 

1  Xanthias 

1-664;  739-808 

!  Aeschylus 

840-1465;  1515-15: 

23 

1  Heracles 

38-164 

Charon 

180-270 

3< 

,  Janitor 
f  Euripides 

465-478;  605-673; 
830-1476 

738-813, 

\  Boarding-house 

Keeper     548-78 

f  Dead  Man 

173-177 

1  Attendant  oi 

f  Persephone  503-521 

4  < 

1  Plathane 

551-571 

[  Pluto 

1411-1480,  1500-15 

127 

DISTRIBUTION  FOR   SIX  ACTORS^ 

I 

Dionysus 
\  Xanthias 
]  Pluto 

2 

3 

Aeschylus 

4 

Euripides 
i  Heracles 

5- 

I  Charon 
(  Janitor 
i  Dead  Man 

6 

1  Attendant  of  Persephone 
(  Boarding-house  Keeper 

LYSISTRATA 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR  FOUR  ACTORS 

I    Lysistrata  1-253;  431-613;  706-780;  829-64;  1106-1189; 

1273  flf. 

'  The  part  of  Plathane  could  have  been  played  by  a  supernumerary,  or  by  anyone 
of  the  actors  who  was  not  at  the  time  engaged. 


IN   CLASSICAL  GREEK   DRAMA  85 

Calonice  6-253 

Cinesias  845-1013 

Old  Woman  A  439-613 

Young  Woman  A  728-80 

Athenian  Ambassador  A   1216-1241;  1086-1189 

Myrrhina  69-253;  837-951 

Proboulus  387-613 

Young  Woman  B  735-780 

Old  Woman  B  439-613 

Athenian  Ambassador  B   1225-1322 

fLampito  78-244 

Spartan  Herald  980-1013 

Young  Woman  C  742-780 

Spartan  Ambassador  1074-1189;  1225-1322 

Supernumerary,  Old  Woman  C     447-449 

DISTRIBUTION   FOR   SEVEN   ACTORS 

I     Lysistrata 

!  Calonice 
Old  Woman  A 
Young  Woman  A 
!  Myrrhina 
Old  Woman  B 
Young  Woman  B 
iLampito 
Old  Woman  C 
Young  Woman  C 
\  Proboulus 
5  I  Ambassador  B 
\  Cinesias 
/  Ambassador  A 
j  Spartan  Herald 
7  )  Ambassador 

Four  actors  could  present  this  play,  but  with  such  a  distribution  each  actor 
must  carry  important  male  and  female  roles.  Two  sets  of  actors  would 
therefore  be  desirable.  With  six  actors,  the  manager  would  probably  combine 
Lampito,  Spartan  Herald,  and  the  Spartan  Ambassador,  since  it  is  not  probable 
that  many  of  the  actors  could  render  the  Spartan  dialect  effectively.  The  very 
insignificant  parts  of  Old  Woman  C  and  Young  Woman  C  could  be  played  by 
supernumeraries,  or  by  the  actors  of  Cinesias  and  of  the  Proboulus. 

Four  actors  could  also  play  the  Thesmophoriazusae  under  the  following 
arrangement:  One  actor  plays  the  part  of  Kedestes;  a  second,  Euripides  1-279, 
871-927,  1056-1132,  1160-1209;  Micca  295-764;  a  third,  Agathon  95-265; 
Anonymous  Woman  295-764;  Cleisthenes  574-654;  Critylla  758-935;  a  fourth 
plays  Servant  of  Agathon  39-69;  Prytanis  929-44;  Heraldess  295-380;  Scythian 
(929-947)  1001-1225.  The  only  serious  objection  to  the  four-actor  distribution 
is  that  one  actor  must  play  Euripides  and  Micca.     A  fifth  would,  therefore, 


86  RULE    OF   THREE    ACTORS 

be  better.  The  Heraldess  and  Scythian  are  quite  different  but  the  doubling 
parts  is  permissible  since  the  Heraldess  has  a  very  insignificant  part.  Agathon 
and  Cleisthenes  are  represented  as  very  effeminate  and  may  be  combined  with 
Critylla. 

In  conclusion  the  v^riter  would  express  the  hope  that  this  essay  may 
do  something  tov^^ard  discrediting  a  tradition  which  has  not  served  to 
enhance  our  pleasure  in  the  great  masterpieces  of  the  Greek  drama.  The 
three-actor  law  has  furnished  many  scholars  with  intellectual  amusement 
in  the  game  of  combination  and  permutation  allowed  by  the  given  scheme, 
but  their  labors  have  not  brought  us  nearer  to  a  sympathetic  appreciation 
of  the  great  characters  portrayed  in  the  plays.  Such  efforts  stand  rather 
as  a  barrier  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  them.  It  is,  indeed,  a  convincing 
proof  of  the  overwhelming  power  of  Greek  dramatic  art  that  our  pleasure 
and  interest  in  it  grows  in  spite  of  such  a  convention  as  scholars  have  been 
wont  to  assume. 


uriMP  USE 

RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)  642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 


.! 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


.^P  0  7  \m 


L4 

8'T2   8  5 


-) 


GAYLAMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Manu/acluttd  hv 
GAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 


Syr 


N.  Y. 


Slockton,  Cellf. 


\  -'  1"  - 


O  ^ 


